Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00060)

Friday, June 15, 2001


Dear Gerry:

Thank you for this most interesting reading.

As I look at it, there is no fundamental deviation between the
metaphysics of Theosophy and those of Buddhism. One has to be
generous in interpreting the meaning of words used.

In the 1880s Olcott went on a mission to various Buddhist centers
and countries to try to secure agreement on terms that
synthesized the basic philosophical concepts of the several
Buddhist schools.

Perhaps we ought to consider that the synthesis of all the
teachings is valuable, and the various separative differences of
outlook indicate the lines of study followed by various great
scholars and their successive "Schools." Since the Buddha
taught, and his students remembered that which was of interest to
them, their record may have caused the divergences because of
differences of understanding the unifying central teaching.

There is no end to arguments, and sometimes statements made are
inaccurate because it is almost impossible to solve all points
without a thorough schooling in the others' discipline (s) .

We do not have a full record of the Buddha's "esoteric teachings"
do we ?

The "Stanzas of Dzyan" and the "Voice of the Silence" are said by
H.P.Blavatsky to be drawn from the original SENZAR (the ancient
secret sacerdotal tongue diffused over the whole world and used
in the "esoteric schools") record - and apparently no collateral
sources have been so far found. Even if we could secure the
originals, the nature of the symbols used there would require a
"Champollion and a Rosetta stone" to secure even a literal
rendition. This is my guess.

I suppose that the statement by one of the Mahatmas written to
Mr. Sinnett (p. 43, MAHATMA LETTERS - Barker Edn.) that the
Buddhas was considered to be the PATRON OF ALL THE ADEPTS, would
carry some weight with you. I would conclude that 'Theosophy"
must have had HIS sanction -- so why would the metaphysics of
these two "schools" be different ? Apparently The SECRET
DOCTRINE was written under the close supervision of the
Mahatmas - as They gave Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden a letter certifying
that the book, The SECRET DOCTRINE was their triple production
with H.P.Blavatsky as amanuensis.

I have observed the divergences of Buddhist schools over many
years, and the enormous amount of time spent in discussing
possible reconciliations - I suggest that most "differences" are
reconcilable on the basis of a synthesis which centralizes them.

In these days of translations, it seems inevitable to me that
confusion is compounded because the various converters may have
different ways of translating certain ideas. Literalism has its
value but also its many drawbacks.

Best wishes,

As always

Dallas

=============================




-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:11 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Tzongkapa's Mind-Only Teaching

I just finished reading Emptiness in the Mind-Only School by
Jeffrey Hopkins
(Univ of CA Press, 1999. It is a translation of the Mind-Only
section of
Tzongkapa' Essence of Eloquence with lots of commentary and
quotes from his
successors and detractors. It is hard going, but I thought it
might be
useful to present a brief summary of what Tzongkapa says, and
then, if we
can, compare that to Theosophy. Tzongkapa founded the Gelugpa
school, which
is a section of the Middle Way School. Asanga founded the
Mind-Only School.
This is all part of my continuing effort to compare Buddhism with
Theosophy
in light of the 2nd Objective. I will simply present 7 items of
interest at
this time. Please, anyone who is interested, just join in and
discuss any or
all of the 7 points below.

1. Three Natures. Every phenomenon has three natures
associated with it as
follows:

a. Imputational Nature. This is the false
nature of all phenomena, a
superimposition of false status. We impute real existence to
phenomena, when
they really don't have it.
b. Other-Powered Nature. This nature is due
to causes and conditions,
without which the phenomenon would cease to exist.
c. Thoroughly Established Nature. This is
the real nature of phenomena -
that part of a phenomenon that truly exists.

2. Tzongkapa's three summary conclusions dealing with
the three natures
(these are quotes):

1. Other-powered natures are taken as the
bases of emptiness.
2. Imputational natures are that of which
other-powered natures are empty.
3. Other-powered natures' emptiness of the
imputational nature is the
thoroughly established nature.

3. Mind-Only teaches that the imputational nature is the
superimposition
that the apprehending subject and the apprehended object are two
separate/distant things, whereas actually they are not.

4. Prasangika (Natureless School of Tzongkapa) teaches
that the
imputational nature is the superimposition of inherent reality on
phenomena.

5. Such superimpositions are of two kinds: artificial
(learned) and innate
(genetic, having been established for countless lifetimes).
Artificial
superimpositions are relatively easy to eliminate, and their
elimination
results in liberation from cyclic existence. Innate
superimpositions are
more difficult to eradicate, and their elimination results in the
omniscience of a Buddha.

6. Hopkins lists a condensed 7-step formulation for the
Mind-Only School
that Tzongkapa presents (these are quotes):

1. Forms and so forth appear to conceptual
consciousness to be established
by way of their own character as the referent on the conventions
of entity
and attribute.
2. A conceptual consciousness adheres to
this mistaken appearance as being
correct.
3. Reasoning refutes the correctness of this
appearance and thus also the
correctness of the conceptual consciousness assenting to this
appearance.
4. Objects also appear to sense
consciousness to be established by way of
their own character as the referent of the conventions of entity
and
attribute, and thus the correctness of this appearance to
non-conceptual
consciousness, such as sense consciousnesses, is also refuted.
5. Thereby, sense consciousnesses are shown
to be mistaken with respect to
their appearing objects, in that their objects seem to be
established by way
of their own character as the referents of the conventions of
entity and
attribute, whereas they are not.
6. Thereby, it is refuted that the
apprehended-object is produced through
the power of an external object (that is to say, it is refuted
that images
of objects apprehended in sense perception are produced through
external
objects impinging on consciousness; rather, they are produced
through the
activation of seeds of perception contained within the
mind-basis-of-all.)
7. Thereby, it is also refuted that a sense
object, such as a patch of
blue, exists as an entity other than, or outside of, the sense
consciousness
that perceives it. (The one seed of perception contained within
the
mind-basis-of-all produces both the apprehended-object and the
consciousness
apprehending it, which, although they appear to be separate
entities, are
not.)

7. The mind-basis-of-all mentioned in 6 above is the
alayavijana, which
Tzongkapa rejects as unnecessary but Asanga presented as a
Mind-Only School
tenet. I included it here because Blavatsky seemed to have liked
the eaching
even though she praised Tzongkapa (I don't think she ever praised
Asanga?).

Food for thought.

Jerry S.


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-13148L@list.vnet.net