[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [theosophia] Re: In a borrowed body is not the fact:

Jan 18, 2006 06:28 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck

1/18/2006 6:00 AM

1/18/2006 5:27 AM

Dear “Bhikshuni” [jornaldebuddha]

Forgive me asking?

Are you a Buddhist Bhikshuni ?  


If we turn to the Prâtimoksha Sûtra and other religious tracts of the
Buddhists, we read the ten following commandments:

1. Thou shalt not kill any living creature.
2. Thou shalt not steal.
3. Thou shalt not break thy vow of chastity.
4. Thou shalt not lie.
5. Thou shalt not betray the secrets of others.
6. Thou shalt not wish for the death of thy enemies.
7. Thou shalt not desire the wealth of others.
8. Thou shalt not pronounce injurious and foul words.
9. Thou shalt not indulge in luxury (sleep on soft beds or be lazy).
10. Thou shalt not accept gold or silver.*	
I U II 164


HPB wrote concerning women adepts:


A correspondent of the Indian Mirror, an influential daily paper at
Calcutta, writing under the heading of “Proper Education for our Ladies,”

HPB’s added comment]

The above letter raises certain important questions. Some enquire how the
world is to go on if all were to become occultists, one of the vital
conditions of that order being celibacy.  

Others say that the ancient Rishis married, quoting some of the names
mentioned in the Hindu religious books; and argue therefrom that celibacy is
not an essential condition for progress in practical occultism. ...

The question of the marriage of the Rishis is one of such disputed points...
a passage occurring in the article under the heading of “Magicon,” of
the occultists is said courting a virgin whose name was “Sophia.”  

Now, it is explained there that “Sophia” is wisdom or the Buddhi—the
spiritual soul (our sixth principle). This principle is everywhere
represented as a “female,” because it is passive inasmuch as it is merely
the vehicle of the seventh principle.  

This latter — which is called Atma when spoken of in connection with an
individual and Purush when applied in its relation to the Universe—is the
active male, for it is the CENTRE OF ENERGY acting through and upon its
female vehicle, the sixth principle. 

The occultist, when he has identified himself thoroughly with his Atma, acts
upon the Buddhi, for, according to the laws of Cosmic Evolution, the Purusha
— the universal seventh principle — is perpetually acting upon and
manifesting itself through Prakriti — the universal sixth principle.  

Thus the MAHATMA, who has become one with his seventh principle — which is
identical with Purusha, since there is no isolation in the spiritual monad
is practically a creator, for he has identified himself with the evoluting
and the manifesting energy of nature.  

It was in this sense that the Rishis are said to have married. And the
union of Siva and Sakti represents the same allegory. Jiva is the Logos, the
Vach, manifested through the Prakriti; and the union of the two produces the
phenomenal creation, for until the Son is born, the Father and the Mother
are non-existent.  

Now Prakriti being a female principle, it is fully manifested through a
woman, although, properly speaking, the inner man is neither male, nor
female. It is only the preponderance of either of the two principles
(positive and negative) which determines the sex.  


Now, this preponderance is determined by the Law of Affinity; and hence in a
woman is manifested abnormally the occult power represented by Prakriti.  

She is moreover gifted with a wonderfully vivid imagination — stronger than
man’s. And as the phenomenal is the realization or rather the manifestation
of the IDEAL, which can be properly and strongly conceived only by a
powerful IMAGINATION — a WOMAN-ADEPT can produce high occultists — a race of
“Buddhas and Christs,” born “without sin.”  

The more and the sooner the animal sexual affinities are given up, the
stronger and the sooner will be the manifestation of the higher occult
powers which alone can produce the “immaculate conception.” And this art is
practically taught to the occultists at a very high stage of initiation.  

The “Adept,” whether the Sthula Sarira be male or female, is then able to
bring a new being into existence by the manipulation of cosmic forces.

Anasûyâ, a female adept of the ancient times, is thus said to have
conceived immaculately Durvasas, Dattatreya and Chandra — the three distinct
types of Adeptship.  

Thus it will be seen that the marriage of the occultist (who is, as already
explained, neither male nor female) is a “holy union,” devoid of sin, in the
same manner as Krishna’s union with thousands of Gopîs. Sensual-mindedmen
have taken this fact up too literally; and, out of a wrong interpretation of
the text, has arisen a sect which indulges in the most degrading practices.

But, in fact, Krishna represents the seventh principle, while the Gopîs
indicate the innumerable powers of that principle manifested through its
“vehicle.” Its union “without sin,” or rather the action or manifestation
of each of these powers through the “female principle” gives rise to the
phenomenal appearances.  

In such a union the occultist is happy and “without sin” for the
“conception” of his other-half — the female principle — is “immaculate.”  

The very fact, that this stage pertains to one of the very highest
initiations, shows that the time — when ordinary humanity, during the course
of cosmic evolution, will, in this manner, be able to produce a race of
“Buddhas,” etc., born “without sin” — is yet very, very far off — perhaps
attainable in the sixth or the seventh “round.” But when once this
possibility and the actuality of this fact is recognized, the course of
living and education may be so moulded as to hasten the approach of that
eventful day when on this earth will descend “the Kingdom of Heaven.”

[The Theosophist, Vol. V. No. 11 (59), August, 1884, pp. 263-264]


“Bhikshuni” wrote:


“Upasikas are lay Buddhist females vowed only on the first eight Preceptsof
Gautama Buddha.

Bhikshunis are Buddhist Nuns fully vowed on the whole ten Precepts of
Gautama Buddha Tathagata.

Now, to the truth: what is "The Voice of Silence": It is a book which was
NEVER written by H.P.B.

It is a book whose true title is: THE BOOK OF THE GOLDEN PRECEPTS.

It is a book which was read by H.P.Blavatsky, which was memorized by
H.P.Blavatsky, which was translated into English by H.P.Blavatsky and which
was published by H.P.Blavatsky without any reference on its cover as to its


DT	What is the purpose of this declaration ?  

HPB has disclosed all this !

The Mahatmas have declared the Buddha to be Their PATRON.

Additionally they wrote concerning the :


A good deal has been said about the writing of Isis Unveiled, and later of
the Secret Doctrine, both by H. P. Blavatsky. By some process or power not
known to the world, [she] was able to read books at a distance, as, for
instance, in the Vatican at Rome and the British Museum. 

The last is the fact. She lived in a small flat when writing the first book
and had very few works on hand, all she had being of the ordinary common

She herself very often told how she gained her information as to modern
books. No secret was made of it, for those who were with her saw day after
day that she could gaze with ease into the astral light and glean whatever
she wanted. But in the early days she did not say precisely to the public
that she was in fact helped in that work by the Masters, who gave from time
to time certain facts she could not get otherwise. 

The Secret Doctrine, however, makes no disguise of the real help, and she
asserts, as also many of us believe, that the Masters had a hand in that
great production. 

The letters sent to Mr. Sinnett formed the ground for Esoteric Buddhism, as
was intended, but as time went on it was seen that some more of the veil had
to be lifted and certain misconceptions cleared up; hence the Secret
Doctrine was written, and mostly by the Masters themselves, except that she
did the arranging of it. ...

But it is now time to give out a certificate given when the Secret Doctrine
was being written, a certificate signed by the Masters who have given out
all that is new in our theosophical books...

The first certificate runs thus:

"I wonder if this note of mine is worthy of occupying a select spot with the
documents reproduced, and which of the peculiarities of the "Blavatskian"
style of writing it will be found to most resemble? The present is simply to
satisfy the Doctor that "the more proof given the less believed." Let him
take my advice and not make these two documents public. It is for his own
satisfaction the undersigned is happy to assure him that the Secret
Doctrine, when ready, will be the triple production of [here are the names
of one of the Masters and of H.P.B.] and _______ most humble servant,
[signed by the other.]

On the back of this was the following, signed by the Master who is mentioned
in the above:

"If this can be of any use or help to _____, though I doubt it, I, the
humble undersigned Faquir, certify that the Secret Doctrine is dictated to
[name of H.P.B.], partly by myself and partly by my brother ______.

A year after this, certain doubts having arisen in the minds of individuals,
another letter from one of the signers of the foregoing was sent and reads
as follows. 

As the prophecy in it has come true, it is now the time to publish it for
the benefit of those who know something of how to take and understand such
letters. For the outside it will all be so much nonsense.

"The certificate given last year saying the Secret Doctrine would be when
finished the triple production of [H.P.B.'s name], ________, and myself was
and is correct, although some have doubted not only the facts given in it
but also the authenticity of the message in which it was contained. Copy
this and also keep the copy of the aforesaid certificate. 

You will find them both of use on the day when you shall, as will happen
without your asking, receive from the hands of the very person to whom the
certificate was given, the original for the purpose of allowing you to copy
it; and then you can verify the correctness of this presently forwarded
copy. And it may then be well to indicate to those wishing to know what
portions in the Secret Doctrine have been copied by the pen of [H.P.B.'s
name] into its pages, though without quotation marks, from my own manuscript
and perhaps from ______, though the last is more difficult from the rarity
of his known writing and greater ignorance of his style. All this and more
will be found necessary as time goes on, but for which you are well
qualified to wait."

PATH, April, 1893

“Let those of us who accept the statements of the Masters remember that they
have certified in writing that The Secret Doctrine is the triple production
of those two great beings and H. P. Blavatsky. Such a certificate they have
given of no other book. 

Their certificate will not be accepted by outsiders nor by that small class
of Theosophists who loudly proclaim they will accept nothing that does not
accord with their reason ...; 
W Q J Forum Ans. 68-9   


2	"Bhikshuni" wrote:

“Tulku is a Buddhist Nun or Monk incarnating a higher Buddhist MONK. Thisis

William Quan Judge was not Buddhist. [ Can this be proved ? DTB]

Therefore, William Quan Judge was not lay Buddhist.
Therefore, William Quan Judge was not Buddhist Monk.
Therefore, William Quan Judge was not Tulku.

H.P.Blavatsky was Tulku.
H.P.Blavatsky was Buddhist.
H.P.Blavatsky was an Upasika [a lay Buddhist female who performed the 
eight vows, which include chastity].


3	"Bhikshuni" wrote:



DT	Can this be proved ?   

HPB (an Adept) was of a different opinion. She wrote:

H. P. B. to Judge on a Nirmanakaya residing within him.
Ostende, Oct. 3, 1886

"The trouble with you is that you do not know the great change that came to
pass in you a few years ago. Others have occasionally their astrals changed
and replaced by those of Adepts (as of Elementaries) and they influence the
outer, and the higher man. With you, it is the NIRMANAKAYA not the
'astral' that is blended with your astral. Hence the dual nature and
fighting." - HPB

B.C.W. Vol. VII, p. xxvii, 138;
THEOS. FORUM (Pt. Loma), Aug. 15, 1932, p. 253;


While I hesitate to observe that making the claim : "I am a "Bhikshuni"
stands unsupported on its own publishing -- there is nothing to say: that
is a fact. Nor does it give the right to make criticisms in an ironic

Considering one of the vows taken at pansil: "Sangham saranam gachami ...."
no one may ironically or sarcastically criticize a brother without due and
proper cause. 

H P B adopted the designation "Upasika" as her Personality (that of Helena
P. Blavatsky) was indeed a "student" of occultism -- a fact she stated any
number of times. But who or what was it that used the body of that

As seen from the certificates above the Mahatmas held her in high esteem. 

Best wishes,


-----Original Message-----
From: jornaldebuddha
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:49 AM
Subject: : In a borrowed body is not the fact:

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application