Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jerry S.'s Replies to BAG's Comments

Expand Messages
  • D. H. Caldwell <info@blavatskyarchives.c
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      <<< Your interpretation of the above as "personified reifications"
      shows that you have no understanding of the vast difference between
      the modern western concept of 'personification' and the ancient
      Eastern concept of the PERSONAL presence of atman and ATMAN
      throughout the cosmos and beyond. In the Vaishnava Tradition, ATMAN
      PARABRAHMAN is NOT ultimately impersonal, and thus all emanations and
      incarnations, including the jiva-atmas are ALL PERSONAL.
      Personification is a concept known to the ancient Vaishnavas, but
      considered by them to be similar to idolatry, or the concocted
      worship of false 'gods' or Bhutas. >>>

      Nevertheless, I see gods and goddesses as our own mental projections
      rather than truly existing external beings. I view each and every
      living being as an I-Not-I Monad, and because the Not-I becomes one
      with the I in nonduality, there can be no externally independent
      existing beings in anyone's Not-I.


      <<<Lila 'incarnations' are usually Avataras as THEOPHANIES rather
      than actual INCARNATIONS. Some of the prominent Lila Avataras of
      Krishna-Vishnu are popularly worshiped in Nepalese and Tibetan
      Buddhism. For example the Horse-Headed Hayagriva Lokeshvara, Lion-
      Headed Nrisingha Lokeshvara, and Boar-Headed Baraha Lokeshvara.
      Vishnu's Guna Avatara as Siva Bairava is Worshiped as Maha Kalah or
      Kalah-Bhairab, and Vishnu's Form as Dharma or Yama is worshiped as
      Yamantaka. There are scores of other direct connections. >>>

      I agree that exoteric religion sets up gods and goddesses and
      worships them. I have practiced Yamatanka rituals myself, and agree
      as to their effectiveness. However, I see them all as projections of
      our own I-Not-I Monad, which itself comes from my own interpretation
      of estoeric Theosophy.


      <<<For example the Dalai Lamas were once considered incarnations of
      Amitabha, Lokeshvara or Chen Rei Zei. The Kathmandu Kumari is
      considered a Shaktyavesha', possessed or empowered incarnation of
      KALI. Shankaracarya was is widely believed to be an incarnation of
      Shiva. >>>

      Yes but to say as the way you are saying it is pure exotericism.
      Buddhists do not believe in atman or self, and their gods are not
      inherently existing beings. When a Buddhist talks about incarnations
      or tulkus, they mean to say that a certain person is born expressing
      or manifesting those qualities that the god or goddess symbolically
      represents.


      <<<To learn more, search for HERU or HORUS THE ELDER. >>>

      I wrote a book on ancient Egypt in which I translated various
      chapters of the Book of the Dead (Coming Into the Light) so I am
      already versed in this subject and I understand what you are saying.
      Orisis personifies the reincarnation process. Horus personifies the
      human being as part of a human lifewave subject to reincarnation and
      karma (Maat). Isis personifies the Arc of Descent and her sister
      Nephtys personifies the Arc of Ascent.


      <<<Dismissing the many Names and Forms of God as merely the product
      of various human cultures or some kind of Archetypal projection
      leaves many very important questions unasked and unanswered. In the
      1960s I recognized these cognate Holy Names, when it was
      still 'forbidden' to even compare them. Since then, the whole field
      of Helleno-Semitica has blossomed, and the computer assisted field of
      Super Linguistics has developed. Studies of the Nostratic Linguistic
      Super family, plus the Niger and Nilo-Saharan Linguistic Families are
      now yielding evidence that supports my 1960s findings regarding the
      cognate Names of the ONE GOD in Egyptian, Indo-European and Semitic
      Monotheism.>>>

      While this may all be true, it doesn't counter the fact that gods and
      goddesses are our own mental projections. In point of fact, I believe
      that everything in the Not-Self or Not-I (ie, everything that we view
      as not our own self) is a mental projection, and I do so in accord
      with the Mind Only School of Tibetan Buddhism from which Blavatsky
      got many of her teachings.

      <<<Actually the Omphalos at Delphi was NOT originally a 'Phallic'
      symbol, but a navel or umbilicus. It represented the axis mundi that
      was Hari's / Heli' s (Vishnu's) navel / umbilicus, on which HELIOS
      PHANES APPEARED AT THE DAWN OF CREATION. Delphi was a Helios Shrine,
      and Delpha is cognate with GARBHA, ... The coinage of Rhodes and
      sometimes members of the Rhodian Heliopolitan Asyla Federations
      (Leagues) often had a Rose, Lotus or Star on them. >>>

      This entire paragraph of intellectual gymnastics reminds me of
      Blavatsky, who loved this kind of stuff, full of sound and fury and
      signifying, what...? I have no idea of what practical value any of
      this is.


      <<<Thus one can 'reach' the Spiritual Sky and God through either
      cataphatic means or apophatic means, by journeying either without or
      within.>>>

      Yes, and Blavatsky's own globes and planes model is a nice map of the
      general areas. But reaching these worlds implies the use of magic,
      and you will not find any Theosophists eager to do so.

      <<<However, in the original Pure Land Tradition, the doctrine of
      liberation was one of MOKSHA for real beings, in an infinite PURE
      LAND Sukhavati, through the salvific grace of Amitabha-Lokesvara-Hrih
      the PERSONAL TRI KAYA. >>>

      I am not sure that Blavatsky knew of the Pure Land school.


      <<<The attempt to reconcile the doctrine of the saving cosmic
      intercession of Amitabha, Lokesvara and Bodhisattvas with the
      doctrine of anatta is absurd. Why so much effort of not-real beings
      to 'save' other not-real beings ? >>>

      These beings are not "not real." They have conditional reality. If we
      say that conditional beings are not real, then the entire doctrines
      of karma and reincarnation and treading a Path go out the window.
      Conditional reality is just that -- a reality. But it is not
      permanent.


      <<<When HPB chose to promote the Pure Land Mahayana doctrine
      of 'Nirmanya Kaya' Bodhisattvas over promoting the Theravada doctrine
      of nirvana, she was choosing to affirm the existence of savable atmas
      as the object of compassion. However, not having a Dharma Kaya to
      promote publicly, she kept her chelas and the Mahatmas endlessly
      circulating in the great rounds of our universe ! >>>

      I am not convinced that HPB was even aware of Pure land let alone
      promoted it. She promoted an eclectic set of teachings from the
      various Tibetan Buddhist schools. She clearly did promote Mahayana
      over Thervadin. I am not sure what "savable atmas" are, but it sounds
      like Christianty saving souls etc, which Blavatsky never taught. I
      agree with your last sentence.


      <<<It should be noted that one NEVER 'falls' back into material birth
      after being 'born' in the PURE LAND, and the WAY to get to the PURE
      LAND is through FAITH in the salvific OTHER-POWER OF AMITABHA,
      Lokeshvara, Their Bodhisattvas, saints and HOLY MOTHER TARA / Kuan
      Yin. >>>

      Never say never. While I agree with faith, I do not agree with
      salvation. Theosophy has nothing to do with salvation. The very fact
      that we are here now implies the possibility of being here again --
      this is the logical heart of reincarnation and it challenges
      any "never again" business.

      <<<My only addition to your statement would be that in Vaishnava
      Vedanta, there are also Brahmavadis in the Brahma Jyoti (Brahman) in
      the Spiritual Sky. Some of these also have a kind of bliss, because
      theirs is an experience of merging with the Brahman, as a beloved may
      desire to 'merge' with their Lover.>>>

      Again, projecting an external Brahman to unite with is not necessary.
      I believe that we each already have an anandakosha or Body of Bliss
      and that conscious activation of this is the reason for the bliss
      that is experienced in spiritual states.

      Thanks, BAG,

      Jerry S.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.