Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00658)

March 27th 2004

RE: Were the Mahatmas Buddhists?


Dear Friends:

Perhaps this might answer a few things in regard to Sri Shankaracharya
(see THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY p. 307-8)


SHANKARACHARYA & BUDDHA

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

“Sri Sankaracharya, the greatest Initiate living in the historical ages,

wrote many a Bhashya on the *Upanishads*. But his original treatises, as

there are reasons to suppose, have not yet fallen into the hands of the 
Philistines, for they are too jealously preserved in his *maths* 
(monasteries, *mathams*). And there are still weightier reasons to
believe 
that the priceless Bhashyas (Commentaries) on the esoteric doctrine of
the 
Brahmins, by their greatest expounder, will remain for ages yet a dead 
letter to most of the Hindus, except the *Smartava* Brahmins.”
(Secret Doctrine, Vol I, page 271.)

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

QUESTION:

"Historically the Buddha is said to have reincarnated as Shankaracharya,
who reformed Brahmanism on the West cost of India among the Smartava
brahmins with a chief Mutt (vihara or teaching temple ?) was founded by
him in Sringeri in the Western Ghats, near Coorg, Mysore. "

I have heard Theosophists speak of this reincarnation as a known fact -
as 
you do. Is that written anywhere? Where does it come from? I have
found 
HPB referring to the "mysterious connection" between Buddha and 
Shankaracharya but not seen anything in Theosophy more specific.


An ANSWER:

A student suggests:


With regards the Buddha reincarnating as Sankaracharya, have a look at
HPB's article, "THE MYSTERY OF BUDDHA", BLAVATSKY, Collected Writings,
vol XIV, pp. 388-399. It is probably also worth reading her previous
article "THE DOCTRINE OF THE AVATARS" in the same work.  

The connection between these two personages is also described in
ESOTERIC BUDDHISM, by A. P. Sinnett.

As I understand HPB.:

Sankara, she avers, is a Buddha and an Avatar, but HPB does not
categorically state that he was a reincarnation of Gautama the Buddha,
as such. She uses, I believe, the word ’overshadow.’

HPB explains that each of our principles has its essence in, and is
therefore derived from, one or another of the seven primordial Celestial
Principles – i.e., the ‘head’ and essence of each principle is that of
the hierarchy of Dhyani Chohans and Dhyani Buddhas (S D I 570-574)..  

Thus, it appears one could say that when the Gautama Buddha ‘entered
Nirvana’ the essence of each of those principles had been perfected and
united by him. It is these perfected “remains” or ‘aggregates,’
(skandhas) which a Buddha uses to continue his work on earth. It is,
one might say, a Bodhisattvic 'body,' a 'spiritual form'.

In the MAHATMA LETTERS (Barker Edition, p 43, Letter ix) we find the
Master writing.  

When Gautama: -- 

"reached first Nirvana on earth, he became a Planetary Spirit; ie - his
spirit could at one and the same time rove the interstellar spaces IN
FULL CONSCIOUSNESS, and continue at will on Earth in his original and
individual body. For the divine Self had so completely disfranchised
itself from matter that it could create at will an inner substitute for
itself, and leaving it in the human form for days, weeks, sometimes
years, affect in no wise by the change either the vital principle or the
physical mind of its body." M L p. 43


Now, presumably the Master is speaking of the period when Gautama
Buddha still had a physical body (i.e., "when [he] first reached
Nirvana"). But it seems to me it is also this "inner substitute" that
HPB is referring to in her article above when she writes of the Buddha
after death, saying that it is: --

"the Bodhisattva [the created inner substitute, the perfected inner
principles] that replaces in him [i.e., Gautama] the Karana Sarira, the
Ego principle and the rest accordingly." (p391)  

I think a further clue is offered in Subba Row's article on the Seven
Principles and especially TARAKA RAJA YOGA. HPB refers to this on page
157 of the SD, vol 1.  

One of the clues for us, may be in what Subba Row adds after giving the
table:

".. the classification mentioned in the last column [ie that of Taraka
Raja Yoga] is, for all practical purposes connected with Raja Yoga...
Though there are seven principles in man, there are but three distinct
Upadhis (bases) in each of which his Atma may work independently of the
rest. These three upadhis can be separated by an Adept without killing
himself. He cannot separate the seven principles from each other
without destroying his constitution."	S D I 157


The Taraka Raja Yoga system has 	
			

PRINCIPLES	ESOTERIC BUDDHISM	PLANE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

----------------	--------------------------------
------------------------------------------

Atma, (the Higher Self) Turiya – Samadhi
(Meditation)

Karanopadhi	The form of Wisdom Buddhi.	Sushupti (Deep
sleep)

Sukshmopadhi	The form that combines emotion, desire Swapna (Dreams
and Visions)
And the dual Mind (higher and lower Manas) 

Sthulopadhi	The physical; and astral forms combined Jagrat
(Waking consciousness)
with Prana – life-energy

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

We might note that these three correspond to the triple scheme of
evolution mentioned earlier on in the SD, i.e., the spiritual
(monadic), mental and physical (see SD I 181) and thus they also refer
to the three main celestial hierarchies o: m-- 1. Dhyani Buddhas, 2.
Agnishwattas (solar pitris), and 3. Barhishads (lunar pitris).  


As I understand it, not only may an Adept separate and use any one of
his upadhis independently of the rest, in order to help humanity; but he
may also use or associate one or another of those upadhis with chelas
under his direct instruction. Presumably, he is able to do this through
the celestial hierarchy associated (with both individuals) with the
upadhi in question. If correct, this would provide enormous scope
(always under Karma) to the Adept influence on all planes.

It would seem, in the case of a Buddha, after the death of his
'physical body' and after 'he' has refused to enter Nirvana. (see The
VOICE OF THE SILENCE , pp. 72-79) that it is these three perfected
Upadhis which are referred to by some, as 'the astral remains'. The word
“astral” is, in this case, to be expanded to include the superior forms.

In the case of a Buddha these may be what are collectively referred to
as: 'the mind born son', the Bodhisattva, of the full Buddha (BCW,
XIV, 391). This INTELLIGENCE may then be used to help humanity, if
Karma permits, after the Buddha has (apparently to us) “entered
Nirvana,” or as the Master puts it, after he has become a Planetary
Spirit, and, as necessary, has developed the faculty of being able to
rove (in consciousness) interstellar (or other) spaces (as of our own
world) at will, leaving behind, in all cases, this INTELLIGENT and FULLY
OPERATIONAL substitute of himself. 

In the case of Gautama and Sankaracharya, as HPB puts it:

"Samkarâchârya was reputed to be an Avatâra, an assertion the writer
implicitly believes in, but which other people are, of course, at
liberty to reject. And as such he took the body of a southern Indian,
newly-born Brâhman baby; that body, for reasons as important as they are
mysterious to us, is said to have been animated by Gautama’s astral
personal remains. This divine Non-Ego chose as its own Upâdhi (physical
basis), the ethereal, human Ego of a great Sage in this world of forms,
as the fittest vehicle for Spirit to descend into."


Best wishes,


Dallas

-------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Ali 
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:51 PM
To: 
Subject: RE :Were the Mahatmas Buddhists?



>From: "Koshek Swaminathan" 

>Reply-To: ******************************

>
>>From my understanding and independent research, I'm not sure if we
really 
>know
>what the Buddha actually taught. If we look at the Dhammapahda, which
is
>considered the most authentic work on the sayings of the Buddha, we
find 
>that
>there is an entire chapter on instructions to Brahmanas. If we believe
that 
>he
>was against the Brahman tradition, it appears that he may have been 
>actually
>promoting it from an esoteric standpoint.

I think it's safe to say the Buddha was against the caste system and its

repressiveness. I don't think he promoted "Brahmanism" at all, so there 
wasn't any esoteric standpoint.
He was just addressing the Brahmanas individually as "those who endeavor
to 
live the holy life". Just as they called him "Lord", "Bhagwhan".


>The Buddhism of Ashoka's time does not seem to reflect the same
religion we
>have today. For a Buddhist kingdom, there seems to be much worship of
>tradtional Hindu gods. Most historians say that this is because Ashoka
was
>tolerant of other beliefs but what if Buddhism not only tolerated but 
>accepted
>those traditions, only that it brought the ancient Esoteric Wisdom back

>into
>Hindu practice?

The deity-worship was entrenched then, as now. Gautama, I believe sought
to 
dissuade men from worshipping forms of any sort as being an inferior 
practice. His teaching was that there is no reality in form, even in
that of 
divine personages.
I'm reminded of Sri Ramakrishna's recounting- he was, of course, a
gone 
devotee of the Mother- his telling of how he finally, reluctantly even- 
crossed from the worship of her in form to the formless- that is a
crucial 
point of the Buddha's message, imo. To not get sidetracked by the form.

>We also need an explanation for why there is no written record of the
Adi
>Shankara ever criticising Buddhism. This was pointed out by the past
>Shankaracharya of Kanchipooram in his seminal work Sanatana Dharma.
What is
>even stranger is that it was the Adi Shankra who introduced the idea
that
>Gautama Buddha was the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Was Adi Shankara
another
>Esoteric Buddhist?

I have heard that the incarnation of Shankara- and maybe Blavatsky
mentions 
this- was brought about to achieve a sort of balancing of what had
happened 
to the teachings of the Buddha- that they had been quickly perverted
into a 
nihilistic form that was poisoning the root of the teaching.

Of course, Shankara's devotional style was diametrically opposed, and
modern 
buddhists revile his movement as a "killer" of 'pure' buddhism. But,
most 
likely its 'spirit' was already dead.
Shankara would not criticise Buddhism- nor was he there to reform that

which was a reform movement. What explanation is needed?

<snip>

>All this seems to indicate to me that Esoteric Buddhism may be the
original
>Buddhism, that it may have promoted brotherhood and the open
comparative 
>study
>of spiritual traditions in the light of this Esoteric knowledge. Much
like
>Freemasonry in that is open to all religions as an expression of the
one 
>Truth.
>It would also indicate that the Mahayana school in Tibet may be closer
to 
>the
>original teachings than the Theravada. These are just working
assumptions 
>but
>they seem just as good to me as the traditional working assumptions of
>historians.

It should be safe to say that the most intimate teachings of the buddha,

nor, ftm, the Zen Patriarchs were not made available in any of the
exoteric 
traditions passed down.