Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00676)

Dallas,

The Taraka Raja Yoga system seems to suggest that Manas cannot be 
separated from the Sukshmopadma without the Adept killing himself. 
Yet according to Theosophy, Manas can be separated from the lower 
quartenary and is part of the upper triad that does reincarnate from 
birth to birth. This indicates that there is more than a difference 
of semantics between Subbha Row and HPB. Care to comment?

Ariel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...> 
wrote:
> 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.