Re: Response to Rich
Jan 17, 1999 01:04 AM
by Leon Maurer
In a message dated 1/15/99 5:20:11 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>>Would you not agree that that which is public knowledge is, by default,
>For the most part, yes. But even some "public" knowledge is
>esoteric because it has to be experienced to be understood.
>I can tell you all about a mystical experience, but if you never
>had one, you won't know what I am talking about. This is also
>true of emptiness which has to be experienced.>
>She never mentions emptiness or non-duality. Try reading
>a Dzogchen text and see the difference.
Could it be that the idea of "emptiness" or "sunyata" (i.e form, by it's
nature of continual (infinitesimal) change, is therefore empty of inherent
existence), and the idea of non-duality (i.e. All that exists are parts of one
existence)--are so obvious upon understanding of the Fundamental
Principles--that HPB had no reason to mention it in the SD or any of her other
writings? What is the big deal about these "concpts" that a Dzogchen text has
to make such a difficult and complex study out of them? Is there something
fundamental in those exoteric Buddhist teachings that is missing? If so, I
wonder why they left it out?
>>> Probably the single most important teaching
>>> in all Buddhism is emptiness, and this HPB never discusses. .
>>Study "The Secret Doctrine" where you will discover countless pointers
>>to *so-called* "emptiness" as it is meant to be understood.
>Gee, thanks for the great tip! I have studied the SD for over 30 years
>and somehow must have missed it.
I guess you must have. As I said above, one doesn't even have to go past the
Proem to nail that idea down. If one misses the ideas of "emptiness" and
"fullness", "oneness" and "duality"--as thoroughly covered in the 3
fundamentals (and which could be "realized" in the first meditations on them
as a unified whole)--I wonder what could be gotten out of the rest of the SD?
30 years is a long time to study a textbook about the birth and evolution of
mankind, the universe, and everything else in it, without having a handle on
their fundamental ground, their laws, and their purposes. HPB cut through
Nagarjuna's fundamental question, "Is it one or many?"--by answering, "It is
neither one nor many, but both."--and wiped out the idea of nihilism that some
Buddhist teachings imply, and is totally denied by theosophy.
Why couldn't we say, then--boldly, categorically, and without
equivocation--that there is not one element of any Buddhist teachings about
the "nature of reality" or the gaining of "self realization" that cannot be
derived out of the three fundamental principles of theosophy as explained by
HPB in the Proem to the Secret Doctrine?
In the event it may be needed by students of the SD (who haven't got 30 years
to spare:;-), here's an interesting article, "Madam Blavatsky--On How to Study
The Secret Doctrine".
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application