Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00213)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...> 
wrote:

> First of all - HPB and the Mahatmas were of an esoteric buddhist
> lineage, not an exoteric one. What's come out to the west is by
> definition exoteric. 

Thank you both, Katinka and John, for your replies. As I am not a 
Buddhist scholar, I am trying to understand the question of the 
Mahatmas' Buddhism as a student of Theosophy.

Most Buddhist practitioners may not agree with your view, Katinka, 
that the Buddhist teachings that came to the west are exoteric ones. 
It appears that there are two great streams in Mahayana Buddhism: 
the "sutrayana" and the "vajrayana" (also referred to 
as "tantrayana"). The first focusses on the study and assimilation of 
core traditional texts, like the Heart Sutra or the Diamond Sutra. 
The second involves several levels of spiritual practice, including 
meditation, mantras, ritual gestures, visualisations, etc., and is 
considered esoteric because admission to its more profound teachings 
is through some form of initiation. A number of highly recognised 
sources affirm that Sunyata is at the very heart of Tantric 
(esoteric) Buddhism. The sand mandala in the Kalachakra Tantra, for 
instance, has Sunyata as its core meaning.

As you suggested, Katinka, one possible point of contact between 
esoteric Buddhism, as it is known today, and the Mahatmas' Buddhism 
is to interpret Sunyata as the One Life. But that also creates more 
problems for Sunyata, as presented by its most illustrious 
philosopher, Nagarjuna, means the ending of all views, of all 
notions, of all theories, of all scholasticism, revealing the vast 
emptiness of all phenomena as the ultimate reality. Incidentally, 
John, although stimulating, Gariaev's theory is still conceptual. 
Nagarjuna insisted that Sunyata is not a doctrine, it is the ending 
of all doctrines.

I find your point, Katinka, that the Mahatmas and HPB had to address 
the world view of their time quite compelling. "Science is our great 
ally", KH wrote. But let us remember that in one of his letters to 
Sinnett, he said: "Our terms are untranslatable". This suggests a 
teaching which was unheard of in the western culture. There are so 
many things that we do not know and perhaps we shall never know. 

HPB mentioned that there were Adepts connected with other traditions 
(Egyptian, Coptic, Rosicrucian, Masonic, Gnostic, etc.). A few 
questions come to mind:

1) In view of the difficulties of tracing the Mahatmas' Buddhism (a 
form of Buddhism that accepts concepts such as Atma, Soul, Monad, 
evolution, etc.), is it possible that their tradition is completely 
outside the existing Buddhist schools of thought and practice?

2) Did they avoid the radical teaching of Sunyata in order to better 
relate to the western mind at that time which, as we know, seeks to 
understand reality through the use of categories?

3) Is there a level within every great spiritual tradition wherein 
discourse, intellectual concepts and category-bound awareness give 
way to a perception of things as they are and to the realisation of 
a "power that makes all things new"?


Pedro