Theos-Talk Archives (August 2012 Message tt00035)

Can you expand the abbreviations of refs.
Thanks
On Aug 19, 2012 1:35 PM, "Jeremy Condick" <jpcondick2011@TsSUidsYObr1I59nrS5T25lB5wirc-x51nq0Zmla6ZRCVCeu6Kxid5GChlzswcwc9dNrt-3bFEqNo6etOw0tsA.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>
> Kind regards MKR, for the information in this post below...
>
> Here are some thoughts for us on avatars, Krishna, the Christ and Jesus
> also. JPC.
>
>
>
> Buddhaâ He expressed perfectly the significance of light in matter, of the
> intelligence principle as found in form, and was the Avatar Who carried in
> Himself the fully ripened seeds of the past solar system. EP2 278.
>
> It might be of interest here to note that Christ was the first of our
> earth humanity to achieve the goal, whereas the Buddha was the last of the
> moon chain humanity to do so. As far as the development of these two sons
> of God was concerned, so rapid was the development of the Christ that in
> Atlantean days He found Himself upon the Path of Probation as did also the
> Buddha. EP2 210.
>
>
> An avatar is a descent from on high upon earth of the Deity in some
> manifest shape. IU2 260.
>
>
> âavatar, like the Messiah of the Jews... IU2 259.
>
>
> This was made possible by the Christ as the Avatar, working in cooperation
> with the Master Jesus. DINA2 406.
>
>
> And thus it is that not only a Buddha, a ShankarÄchÄrya, or a Jesus can be
> said to animate several persons at one and the same time, but even the
> principles of a high Adept may be animating the outward tabernacles of
> common mortals. SD3 372
>
>
> Avatar only makes its appearance under a peculiar series of cycles
> concerned with a group of Monads who were the most progressed and advanced
> at the opening of the mahamanvantara. As yet, there are not many progressed
> enough to do this triple work; the Buddha and nine others being the only
> Ones as yet remaining in touch with our particular planet in this
> particular manner. A few are as Christ is, and have the power to make a
> dual appearance. TCF 1194.
>
>
> Christ, Bacchus, Apollo, and the Hindu Christna, the incarnation of
> Vishnu, with whose first avatar this symbol of the fish originated. IU2 257.
>
>
> Avatar or incarnation. IU2 260.
>
>
> Christâ the leader of His people and "the Eldest in a great family of
> brothers" (Romans VIII, 29.) RC 156.
>
>
> It might be of interest here to note that Christ was the first of our
> earth humanity to achieve the goal, whereas the Buddha was the last of the
> moon chain humanity to do so. As far as the development of these two sons
> of God was concerned, so rapid was the development of the Christ that in
> Atlantean days He found Himself upon the Path of Probation as did also the
> Buddha. EP2 210.
>
>
> This was made possible by the Christ as the Avatar, working in cooperation
> with the Master Jesus. DINA2 406.
>
>
> And thus it is that not only a Buddha, a ShankarÄchÄrya, or a Jesus can be
> said to animate several persons at one and the same time, but even the
> principles of a high Adept may be animating the outward tabernacles of
> common mortals. SD3 372
>
>
> Avatar only makes its appearance under a peculiar series of cycles
> concerned with a group of Monads who were the most progressed and advanced
> at the opening of the mahamanvantara. As yet, there are not many progressed
> enough to do this triple work; the Buddha and nine others being the only
> Ones as yet remaining in touch with our particular planet in this
> particular manner. A few are as Christ is, and have the power to make a
> dual appearance. TCF 1194.
>
>
> The Buddha held office prior to the present World Teacher and upon his
> Illumination His place was taken by the Lord Maitreya whom the Occidentals
> call the Christ. TCF 214.
>
>
> He has been for two thousand years the supreme Head of the Church
> Invisible, the Spiritual Hierarchy, composed of disciples of all faiths. He
> recognizes and loves those who are not Christian but who retain their
> allegiance to Their Founders - the Buddha, Mohammed and others. He cares
> not what the faith is if the objective is love of God and of humanity. If
> men look for the Christ Who left His disciples centuries ago, they will
> fail to recognize the Christ Who is in process of returning. The Christ has
> no religious barriers in His consciousness. It matters not to Him of what
> faith a man may call himself. RC 60.
>
> Krishna and Christ are philosophically the same principle under its triple
> aspect of manifestation. In the Bhagavatgita we find Krishna calling
> himself indifferently Atman, the abstract Spirit, Kshetragna, the Higher or
> reincarnating Ego, and the Universal SELF, all names which, when
> transferred from the Universe to man, answer to Atma, Buddhi and Manas.
>
> The Christ Child is present in truth, and the human heart and mind are
> becoming aware of that fact; the goal for thousands everywhere is the
> demonstration of the Christ spirit, and the exemplification of a life
> conditioned by love and modeled upon that of Christ or Shri Krishna, his
> earlier incarnation. DINA2 270.
>
>
>
>
>
> > To: Theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > From: mkr777@ITBOvmRGlZmisd17pn09v3p-nNh1ZOtpVpmBwRZV3kNApZbbakIdr-znbFxbcVPd0nFTZ38yndCBIQ.yahoo.invalid
> > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:41:44 -0500
> > Subject: theos-talk T Subba Rao's Explanation of Avatars
> >
> > The doctrine of Avatar is well known in India. It is taken for granted.
> > However, there is very little published information explaining the
> > principles behind Avatara. There is a discussion by HPB in Secret
> > Doctrine. T Subba Rao, the well known theosophist, addressed this issue
> in
> > his lectures on Gita. It is a very comprehensive explanation of Avatar.
> It
> > is quoted below for ready reference. Enjoy his excellent presentation.
> >
> > ++++
> >
> > Krshna is generally supposed to be an Avatar,
> > This theory of Avatars plays a very important part
> > in Hindu philosophy; and, unless it is properly
> > understood, it is likely that great misconceptions
> > will arise from the acceptance of the current views
> > regarding this Avatar. It is generally supposed that
> > Krshna is the Avatara of the one great personal God
> > who exists in the cosmos. Of course those who hold
> > this view make no attempt to explain how this one
> > great personal God succeeded in setting up an
> > intimate connection with the physical body of Krshna,
> > constituted as the physical body of every man is, or
> > even with a personality, or human individuality, that
> > seems to be precisely similar to that of any other
> > human being. And how are we to explain the theory
> > of Avatars, as generally stated, with reference to the
> > view of this particular Avatar to which I have
> > referred ? This view is without any support. The
> > Logos in itself is not the one personal God of the cos-
> > mos. The great Parabrahmam behind it is indeed one
> > and niramsha, undifferentiated and eternally existing,
> > but that Parabrahmam can never manifest itself as any
> > of these Avatars. It does, of course, manifest itself in
> > a peculiar way as the whole cosmos, or rather as the
> > supposed basis, or the one essence, on which the whole
> > cosmos seems to be superimposed, the one foundation
> > for every existence. But it can manifest itself in a
> > manner approaching the conception of a personal God,
> > only when it manifests itself as the Logos. If Avatars
> > are possible at all, they can only be so with reference
> > to the Logos, or Ishvara, and not by any means
> > with reference to what I have called Parabrahmam.
> > But still there remains the question, what is
> > an Avatara. According to the general theory I
> > have laid down, in the case of every man who
> > becomes a Mukta there is a union with the Logos. It
> > may be conceived, either as the soul being raised to
> > the Logos or as the Logos descending from its high
> > plane to associate itself with the soul. In the
> > generality of cases, this association of the soul with
> > the Logos is only completed after death the last
> > death which that individual has to go through.
> >
> > But in some special cases the Logos does descend
> > to the plane of the soul and associate itself with the
> > soul during the lifetime of the individual ; but these
> > cases are very rare. In the case of such beings, while
> > they still exist as ordinary men on the physical plane,
> > instead of having for their soul merely the reflection
> > of the Logos, they have the Logos itself. Such
> > beings have appeared. Buddhists say that in the
> > case of Buddha there was this permanent union, when
> > he attained what they call Paranirvana nearly twenty
> > years before the death of his physical body. Christians
> > say that the Logos was made flesh, as it were, and
> > was born as Christ as Jesus though the Christians
> > do not go into a clear analysis of the propositions
> > they lay down. There are, however, certain sections
> > of Christians who take a more philosophical view of
> > the question, and say that the divine Logos associated
> > itself with the man named Jesus at some time during
> > his career, and that it was only after that union that
> > he began to perform his miracles and show his power
> > as a great reformer and saviour of mankind.
> >
> > Whether this union took place as a special case in
> > the case of Jesus, or whether it was such a union as
> > would take place in the case of every Mahatma or
> > Maharishi when he becomes a Jivanmukta, we cannot
> > say, unless we know a great deal more about him than
> > what the Bible can teach us. In the case of Krshna
> > the same question arises. Mahavishnu is a God, and
> > is a representative of the Logos ; he is considered as
> > the Logos by the majority of Hindus. From this it
> > must not however be inferred that there is but one
> > Logos in the cosmos, or even that but one form of
> > Logos is possible in the cosmos. For the present I am
> > only concerned with this form of the Logos, and it
> > seems to be the foundation of the teachings we are
> > considering. There are two views which you can
> > take with reference to such human Avatars, as, for
> > instance, Rama, Krshna, and Parashurama. Some
> > Vaishnavites deny that Buddha was an Avatar
> > of Vishnu. But that was an exceptional case and is
> > very little understood by either Vaishnavites or
> > Buddhists. Parashurama's Avatar will certainly be
> > disputed by some writers. I believe that, looking
> > at the terrible things he did, the Madhwas thought
> > that, in the case of Parashurama, there was no
> > real Avatar, but a mere overshadowing of the man
> > by Mahavishnu. But, setting aside disputed cases,
> > we have two undisputed human Avatars Rama and
> > Krshna.
> >
> > Take for instance the case of Krshna. In this case
> > two views are possible. We may suppose that
> > Krshna, as an individual, was a man who had been
> > evoluting for millions of years, and had attained great
> > spiritual perfection, and that in the course of his
> > spiritual progress the Logos descended to him and
> > associated itself with his soul. In that case it is not
> > the Logos that manifested itself as Krshna, but
> > Krshna who raised himself to the position of the
> > Logos. In the case of a Mahatma who becomes a
> > Jlvanmukta, it is his soul, as it were, that is trans-
> > formed into the Logos. In the case of a Logos
> > descending into a man, it does so, not chiefly by
> > reason of that man's spiritual perfection, but for
> > some ulterior purpose of its own for the benefit of
> > humanity. In this case it is the Logos that descends
> > to the plane of the soul and manifests its energy in
> > and through the soul, and not the soul that ascends to
> > the plane of the Logos.
> >
> > Theoretically it is possible for us to entertain either
> > of these two views. But there is one difficulty. If
> > we are at liberty to call that man an Avatar who
> > becomes a Jlvanmukta, we shall be obliged to call
> > Shuka, Vasishtha, Durvasa and perhaps the whole
> > number of the Maharishis, who have become Jivan-
> > muktas, Avatars ; but they are not generally called
> > Avatars. No doubt some great Rishis are enumerated
> > in the list of Avatars, given for instance in the
> > Bhagavat, but somehow no clear explanation is
> > given for the fact that the ten Avataras ordinarily
> > enumerated are looked upon as the Avatara of
> > Mahavishnu, and the others as his manifestations,
> > or beings in whom his light and knowledge were
> > placed for the time being ; or, for some reason or
> > other, these others are not supposed to be Avatars
> > in the strict sense of the word. But, if these are not
> > Avatars, then we shall have to suppose that Krshna
> > and Rama are called Avatars, not because we have in
> > them an instance of a soul that had become a
> > Jivanmukta and so had become associated with the
> > Logos, but because the Logos descended to the
> > plane of the soul, and, associating itself with the
> > soul, worked in and through it on the plane of
> > humanity for some great thing that had to be
> > done in the world. I believe this latter view will
> > be found to be correct on examination. Our respect
> > for Krshna need not in any way be lessened on that
> > account. The real Krshna is not the man in and
> > through whom the Logos appeared, but the Logos itself.
> > Perhaps our respect will only be enhanced, when
> > we see that this is the case of the Logos descending into
> > a human being for the good of humanity. It is not
> > encumbered with any particular individuality in such
> > a case, and has perhaps greater power to exert itself
> > for the purpose of doing good to humanity not
> > merely for the purpose of doing good to one man, but
> > for the purpose of saving millions.
> >
> > There are two dark passages in the Mahabharata,
> > which will be found very hard nuts for the advocates
> > of the orthodox theory to crack. To begin with Rama.
> > Suppose Rama was not the individual monad plus
> > the Logos, but in some unaccountable manner the
> > Logos made flesh. Then, when the physical body
> > disappeared there should be nothing remaining but
> > the Logos there should be no individual ego to follow
> > its own course. That seems to be the inevitable
> > result, if we are to accept the orthodox theory. But
> > there is a statement made by Narada in the Lokapala
> > Sabha Varnana, in the Mahabharata, in which he says
> > speaking of the court of Yama, who is one of the
> > Devas, that Dasaratha Rama was one of the individuals
> > present there. Now, if the individual Rama was
> > merely a maya not in the sense in which every
> > human being is a maya but in a special sense -there
> > is not the slightest reason why he should subsist after
> > the purpose for which this maya garb was wanted
> > was accomplished. It is stated in the Ramayana that
> > the Logos went to its place of abode when Rama
> > died, yet we find, in the Mahabharata, Dasaratha Rama
> > mentioned, together with a number of other kings, as an
> > individual present in Yamaloka, which, at the highest,
> > takes us only up to devachan. This assertion becomes
> > perfectly consistent with the theory I have laid down
> > if that is properly understood. Rama was an indi-
> > vidual, constituted like every other man ; probably he
> > had had several incarnations before, and was destined,
> > even after this one great incarnation, to have several
> > subsequent births. When he appeared as Rama Avatar,
> > it was not Rama's soul transformed into the Logos, or
> > rather Rama himself as Jivanmukta, that did all the
> > great deeds narrated in the Ramayana an a allegorical
> > as it is but it was the Logos, or Mahavishnu, that
> > descended to the plane of the soul and associated
> > itself for the time being with a particular soul for the
> > purpose of acting through it. Again, in the case of
> > Krshna there is a similar difficulty to be encountered.
> > Turn, for instance, to the end of the Mousala Parva in
> > the Mahabharata, where you will find a curious passage.
> > Speaking of Krshna 's death, the author says that the
> > soul went to heaven which corresponds to devachan
> > where it was received with due honours by all the
> > Devas. Then it is said that Narayana departed from
> > that place to his own place, Narayana being the
> > symbol of the Logos. Immediately after, there
> > follows a stanza describing the existence of Krshna
> > in swargam, and further on we find that when
> > Dharmaraja's soul went into swargam he found Krshna
> > there. How are these two statements to be reconciled ?
> > Unless we suppose that Narayan, whose energy and
> > wisdom were manifested through the man Krshna, was
> > a separate spiritual power manifesting itself for the
> > time being through this individual, there is no solu-
> > tion of the difficulty. Now, from these two statements
> > we shall not be far wrong in inferring that the Avatars
> > we are speaking of were the manifestations of one
> > and the same power, the Logos, which the great Hindu
> > writers of old called Mahavishnu. Who then is this
> > Mahavishnu ? Why should this Logos in particular,
> > if there are several other Logoi in the universe, take
> > upon itself the care of humanity, and manifest itself
> > in the form of various Avatars and further, is it
> > possible for every other adept, after he becomes
> > associated with the Logos, to descend as an Avatar
> > in the same manner for the good of humanity ?
> >
> > A clear discussion of these questions will lead us
> > into considerations that go far down into the mys-
> > teries of occult science, to explain which clearly I
> > should have to take into account a number of theories
> > that can only be communicated at the time
> > of initiation. Possibly some light will be thrown
> > upon the subject in the forthcoming Secret Doctrine,
> > but it would be premature for me to discuss the
> > question at this stage. It will be sufficient for me to
> > say that this Mahavishnu seems to be the Dhyan
> > Chohan that first appeared on this planet when
> > human evolution commenced during this Kalpa, who
> > set the evolutionary progress in motion, and whose
> > duty it is to watch over the interests of mankind until
> > the seven Manvantaras through which we are passing
> > are over. It may be that this Logos itself was
> > associated with a Jivanmiikta, or a great Mahatma
> > of a former Kalpa. However that may be, it is a
> > Logos, and as such only it is of importance to us at
> > present. Perhaps in former Kalpas, of which there have
> > been millions, that Logos might have associated itself
> > with a series of Mahatmas, and all their individualities
> > might have been subsisting in it; nevertheless it has
> > a distinct individuality of its own, it is Ishvara, and
> > it is only as a Logos in the abstract that we have
> > to consider it for present purposes. This explanation,
> > however, I have thought it necessary to give, for the
> > purpose of enabling you to understand certain
> > statements made by Krshna, which will not become
> > intelligible unless read in connection with what I
> > have said.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]