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

Re: theos-talk Mahatmas and Buddhism

Feb 22, 2012 09:10 AM
by M. Sufilight

Dear Perry and friends

My views are:

Yes. Interesting thoughts you forward.
I have also considered the same perspective as you.

Perry wrote:
"The Mahatmas claim to be Buddhist and yet they speak of Atma or Monad as fundamental in their teachings and yet these are anathema to Buddhism."

M. Sufilight says:
Only anathema with regard to orthodox Buddhism.
Esoteric Buddhism is the same as esoteric Adwaita Vedanta. Those who are well-versed in both teachings and who are able to read between the lines will easily realise this. Buddha as a proven fact based his doctrines on the ancient teachings of the Upanishads - where many scriptures now are lost in our present time or hidden away in various monasteries - because of the Kali Yuga.
David Reigle seem to me to have a tendency to avoid reading between the lines or use the 7 keys and modes when reading and examining Blavatsky's words. Ordinary scienctific approaches or orthodox Buddhism will never reach the synthesis teachings found in the Akasha or found when reading by the use of more than one of the Seven Keys.

The esoteric doctrine - the Wisdom-religion through all ages never cling to dead-letter teachings, and this is the main reason for no anathema can be said to exist between these teachings in their esoteric versions.
In Blavatsky's papers we find that the Prasanga (Prasangika) Gelugpa Buddhist are being given by Blavataky as the ones being among the closest to the proper Adwaita Vedanta. (See BCW Vol XIV, p. 438 --- also BCW vol. XIV,p. 390-393  --- )

Try to read about Chandrakirti  and his books and related ones. Chandrakirti was a disciple of Nagarjuna, who was taught by the Naga's. There are some English translations most of them if not all of them are unfortunately hopeless in explaning the true esoteric content. This one at googlebooks lead to other books: "The critique of Svatantra reasoning by CandrakÄrti and Tsong-kha-pa: a study KÅdÅ Yotsuya" - although the author might err in certain respects. (For instance also the book by Tsong-Khapa's with his critique of Sva-tantra reasoning. - --- Prasannapada (Madhyamika Vritti) by Chandrakirti  could be the effort worthwhile. I have not studied this deeply as a specialist myself. I only refer to all this because I understand the importance of the Negation doctrines.

Svabhava or Svabhava-t. The latter term used by Blavatsky might mean the same as the former, but are possibly adding the extra meaning "cutting knowledge" or "inner wisdom" by the use of the extra "t".
Just ask Tibetans who are experts in the Tibetan dialects - where there have been hundreds of dialects during time. I have sought to hint this to David Reigle, but no answer on this yet. Blavatsky created her own compund-words in the Secret Doctrine, no doubt about it. And those words was no doubt based on the difficult translatable doctrines in the Dzyan Book. So Blavatsky's use of words aught not to be taken litterally but need to be read by use of the 7 Keys. This seem to be little understood by many.

The esoteric doctrines on cycles (the Wheels) are based on two books, one of them was the original one, by Asuramaya the Atlantean astronomer and magician. And these teachings are also - at least partially if not fully - to be found in the Book of Dzyan (the ESOTERIC Kalchakra Tantra - Esoteric Buddhism) according to Blavatsky.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"If a Vedantic Brahmin of the Adwaita Sect, when asked whether he believes in the existence of God, is always likely to answer, as Jacolliot was answeredâ"I am myself 'God';" a Buddhist (a Sinhalese especially) would simply laugh, and say in reply, "There is no God; no Creation." Yet the root philosophy of both Adwaita and Buddhist scholars is identical,"
(Master KH and Master Morya in so-called Mahatma Letters to H. S. Oloctt and Hubbe Schleiden (and the two set copies to W. Q. Judge) confirmed that Master KH and Morya was behind and in agreement with the content of the book the Secret Doctrine by Blavatsky. Not a word about Dhjuwal Khul being behind that book in the Mahatma Letters.)

Blavatsky wrote in the beginners book The Key to Theosophy:
"ENQUIRER. But how does Theosophy explain the common origin of man?

THEOSOPHIST. By teaching that the root of all nature, objective and subjective, and everything else in the universe, visible and invisible, is, was, and ever will be one absolute essence, from which all starts, and into which everything returns. This is Aryan philosophy, fully represented only by the Vedantins, and the Buddhist system. With this object in view, it is the duty of all Theosophists to promote in every practical way, and in all countries, the spread of non-sectarian education. " (2nd, ed. 1890)

I repeat the words: Non-sectarian education !!!
Each human has his or her own sectarian doctrine and never teach it on behalf of others. Only sects do something the latter.
Only sects promote emphasis on a handful of Shrines and leave others out in the dark. This is a definition of the term.


H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Because, we say, science has only one keyâthe key of matterâto open the mysteries of nature withal, while occult philosophy has seven keys and explains that which science fails to see."
"Phallic worship has developed only with the loss of the keys to the true meaning of the symbols."'
"Every old religion is but a chapter or two of the entire volume of archaic primeval mysteries â Eastern Occultism alone being able to boast that it is in possession of the full secret, with its seven keys. "
"But while supposing that the whole cycle of the universal mystery language will not be mastered for whole centuries to come, even that which has been hitherto discovered in the Bible by some scholars is quite sufficient to demonstrate the claim â mathematically. Judaism having availed itself of two keys out of the seven, and these two keys having been now rediscovered, it becomes no longer a matter of individual speculation and hypothesis, least of all of "coincidence," but one of a correct reading of the Bible texts, as anyone acquainted with arithmetic reads and verifies an addition or total.* A few years longer and this system will kill the dead letter of the Bible, as it will that of all the other exoteric faiths, by showing the dogmas in their real, naked meaning."
"The SEVEN KEYS open the mysteries, past and future, of the seven great Root Races, as of the seven Kalpas"
(SD, Vol. I, p. 155, 264, 318, 325)

Sound is based on the number seven in the scale. Matter in the Periodical Table on the atoms is based on the number 7 as well. Even the colours of the rainbow is based on the number seven. The foetus is sevenfold in its construction. There are 7 holes in the human cranium - as well as 7 main chakras in the Human head. (See The Secret Doctrine, science, and elsewhere).

Blavatsky's words in the above are forwarded as a hypothesis I agree with and which I through my own knowledge can agree with. Let others forward their hypothesises.
All the above are just my views. I hope they are helpful.

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: plcoles1 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 5:15 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Mahatmas and Buddhism

  Hi Everyone, well it's been a while since posting here,I hope you are all doing well!

  My reason for posting is that I have been doing a lot of head scratching over the following issue and would be interested to hear other theosophists opinions.

  It is regarding the relationship between the Universal Wisdom Religion (Theosophy) taught in theosophical writings and Exoteric Buddhism and the Mahatmas relationship to Buddhism.

  I realise David Reigle has written about this subject and I am slowly going through his book "Blavatsky's Secret Books" at the moment, trying to piece things together with my very limited brain and knowledge.

  The Mahatmas claim to be Buddhist and yet they speak of Atma or Monad as fundamental in their teachings and yet these are anathema to Buddhism.

  My question is to what extent can they claim to be truly Buddhists of the Yellow Cap or Gelukpa order and yet teach the doctrine of Atma and Svabhava, obviously there would have been a serious conflict here for them being members of that order while at the same time holding to the doctrines of Svabavah and Atma, also the teachings on after death states and reincarnation are quite different i.e. rebirth into literal hells for long,long periods and rebirth into insect and animal forms.

  Also while it is mentioned in the writings of HPB that there are chelas from different schools of philosophy under these same teachers i.e KH and M , is there any mention of Adepts who are not Buddhist ?

  I am interested to hear what other students may think on this point.




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

[Back to Top]

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