Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00066)

Dear Gerry:

"All we can know?"

How about the injunction in the VOICE OF THE SILENCE: "Look
inward, Thou art Buddha."

Why deny the potential of the ALL POWER?

If we are differentiated and currently ON THIS PLANE limited
centers of thinking, (call them illusions or Maya if you will)
then the links to the other and superior planes would provide at
some level the UNIVERSALITY we need.

We could not thin of or write about these things to each other in
our mutual quest without having some bridge or point of mutual
understanding.

You may rely on YOUR understanding of books and words, and I may,
on mine. But it is essentially the ideas we generate or derive
from them that we are comparing. Is this not true?

If we narrow our spheres we have confusion and separateness. If
we widen our sphere and seek for analogies in nature we generate
sympathetic responses that elevate the level of comprehension.
Is that not also your experience? None of us say in the same
words our experiences, nor do they totally duplicate each other.
Does that make them, wrong, inaccurate, or merely different and
yet, they are still reconcilable.?

The various schools of thought, philosophy Buddhism, Hinduism
etc... are all very well. Unless one develops that sympathy of
approach that enables us to understand one another we remain in
our ivory towers and are unperceived by any but our lower selves.
Does that sound reasonable ?

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 6:02 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: Tzongkapa's Mind-Only Teaching

<<<Dear Jerry:
I see you have chosen to compare the renditions currently
accepted -- fine with me, but as we both know, the WORDS may
serve more to distance us (and others who have no other points of
reliance), than unite us.>>

JERRY: This is all we can compare; all we can ever know. We do
not know
anything of Senser or of Bodhism, and so all is pure speculation.


<<<I was reading over your article in FOHAT which just came in,
and I think
that a more generous or perhaps a more compassionate
understanding of what Theosophy tries to do may be needed. No
doubt you are a protagonist for Buddhism - I am not going to
particularize, any more than Olcott's chosen "school" is of
importance. The reason is that all those differences keep people
mentally at bay. That does not lead to any useful PROGRESS as I
see it.>>

JERRY: My article was not trying to be compassionate per se to
either side,
but was trying to present a fair and accurate estimate of both.
The bottom
line - Some teachings of Tibetan Buddhism are close to Theosophy
while
others are not, and one of the most conflictive seems to be with
Tzongkapa
and his "yellow hats," whom Blavatsky credits with Buddha-like
abilities. On
the other hand, some very close connections can be found with the
"red hat"
school, which Blavatsky seemed to oppose. I don't know about you,
but I find
this interesting. I don't think that, in the interest of the 2nd
Objective,
we should just ignore this.


<<<The aim of both philosophies regardless of the words now used
was
originally BROTHERHOOD.

JERRY: It still is, Dallas. The ethics of Theosophy is identical
to the
Bodhisattva of Tibetan Buddhism - both take the pranaparamitas as
their
source.


<<< The rest is details, practical
applications, etc... It is so, I believe with all religious
philosophies. In current times we seemed constrained by the
strictures placed by scholarship on words - there is no other way
of conveying ideas other than symbols, colors, sounds, etc.. but
then, we would have to conventionalize those for mutual
understanding and accuracy.>>

JERRY: Agreed, but it is also a bit more than that. Why was
Tzongkapa so
adamant about labeling all dependencies as having only
conventional
existence? Because he was afraid that otherwise his students
would take
ultimates for realities. Taking ultimates for realities is
exactly what you
do when you say that the atma-buddhi is eternal and permanent and
so on. You
should be saying *relatively* permanent, and then the correct
idea would be
more clear. This may seem like arguing over triffles, but when
one takes a
Path, it becomes very important. Why? Because many many people
encounter the
Self (atma-buddhi) in meditation and think that it is real and
permanent -
they confuse it for the Monad instead of its ray. Thus they end
their Path
thinking that they have reached the end of the goal, when they
have not.
This is also why some Buddhists seek after nirvana - because they
think it a
real and permanent condition, whereas it is only relatively
permanent.


<<<<With me it is NEVER a battle to achieve any kind of
"superiority." But it is rather, an endeavor to arrive at the
impersonal and universal truth.>>>

JERRY: Dallas, I do not question your motives. But I think that
sometimes
your choice of words misleads your readers into mistaking
imputational
natures for thoroughly-established natures. I see some of the
problems that
faced Tzongkapa (and he was a reformer, not an inventor) the same
as we
Theosophists are facing today. Thus the relevancy.

Hope this helps you to see where I am coming from.

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