Hi everybody!

One of the main differences between Enlightenment and Nirvana is the Bodhisattva Vow. If anyone has quotes or links to information on the Vow, please feel free to share.

George Arundale wrote a book about experiencing Nirvana. Here is a passage about forsaking Nirvana, and returning to the physical world, in order to help those us us still here in the f]hysical world.

George Arundale wrote: (Note Mr. Arundale's description of this physical world as a prison-world.)
“I have entered Eternity. The past is for ever behind me. I am delightfully lost in the rapture of pure being. I am. And in these two words is a fathomless, limitless ocean of bliss supreme. But stay! What is this that I hear? What sounds are these that enter into my joy? Can it be — yes, it is — the call of my prison-worlds. But what have I now to do with my prison-worlds? They are behind me, and never need I return to them again. As I realize that I am free, so gloriously free, I feel how wonderful it is to know my safety in the power of this freedom. No power from prison-world can draw me back, for the power of my freedom transcends all other power below. For a moment again I lose myself in rhythmic ecstasy, and then — what is this strange thing which has come upon me? Am I dissatisfied with such a freedom? Am I, it seems impossible, beginning to want to return? It is true. Across the infinite spaces I have placed between myself and the far-off prison-worlds, come to me the cries of those whom prison-fetters still are binding. Can I honorably ignore them? Yes; and yet I cannot ignore them. Let this freedom, this ecstasy, go. I will have none of it while prison-worlds still call — prison-worlds of every kingdom, prison-worlds of the worlds, of systems, of universes. And as I thus resolve, I find myself apparently turning away from my bliss, and all Nature round me watches my return in solemn stillness, and, I must add for truth's sake though I shrink from writing the words, almost as if in homage.

“Back, back, I go, and at last I am at the doors of that prison-world I left so recently, but which seems an eternity away from me. The doors open. I enter. And as I enter, it is as if I heard: ‘You went to your freedom as was your right, for you have won it. The call of freedom came, and your ears were ready to hear, for you had fulfilled many of those vows the Monad made in the beginning of time, and in their fulfilment their fetters must needs drop away. Yet for many of your comrades from long ago the fetters still remain; and you have done well to heed the cry which came to you across the empty spaces. No bliss, however rapturous, must ever dull the ear to the cry of suffering and need; rather must it make the ear more sensitive, and the feet more speedy to succor.’

“And so I find myself back in the old routine of prison-life, and am content, for I am needed where I am. But what is this change which has come about? Surely I am not still in prison? Is there a mistake? Have I felt the cry unheeded? I look around me. The age-old prison-world is round me. Yet I am different. I have not returned alone. Something glorious has returned with me, and in its magic the imprisonment seems no imprisonment. It is imprisonment, and yet it is not. Slowly upon me dawns the fact that while the form is there, the life has become free. I dwell a free man in the form. No longer am I bound upon it. No longer need I return to it life after life its slave, though I may return its master. Form has become the servant of my life. Another miracle of transubstantiation, for within the forms freedom has been substituted for necessity. Have I not brought Nirvana back with me? Have not the swaying ecstasies of Divinity-attuned rhythm entered into my very being, thus abiding with me even in the prison-worlds? All I thought I must leave is with me forever. There is no loss in renunciation, only gain. There is no loss in sacrifice, only gain. And this gain is the supreme gain of gains — the gain of added Unity, and of the Love, the Wisdom and the Power which are its threefold agpect.” (George Arundale, Nirvana — An Occult Experience, pages 233-235)

Hi everybody!

I would like to explain what the Bodhisattva Vow is. It is a vow where a person vows to speed up their entry to Enlightenment, in order to help their fellow human beings. They also refuse to enter Nirvana, and stay in the physical world, in order to provide whatever assistance they can.

Here are the four basic vows.

However innumerable sentient beings are, I vow to save them.
However inexhaustible the defilements are, I vow to extinguish them.
However immeasurable the Dharmas are, I vow to master them.
However difficult Enlightment is, I vow to attain it.

http://essenes.net/bodhivows.html

I collect various various versions of the Bodhisattva vow on my website.

-----

I don't think the vow implies staying in the physical world. It does imply staying within psychological reach of mankind.

In Blavatsky's words (in terminology taken from Buddhism): the bodhisattva stays invisibly accessible in his 'nirmanakaya' roughly illusion-body.

Here is the most direct form of the Vow that I have found yet. (The actual Vow is the second half.)

I take refuge in The Buddha The Dharma and The Sangha
I take refuge in The Guru The Yidam and the Dakini
I take refuge in The Bodhisattvas The Protectors and The Tantras
Homage to all of you

As long as there is suffering
As long as there are sentient beings in the 6 realms
May I never attain Enlightenment
And never cross over into Nirvana

In addition to the general bodhisattva vow to bring oneself & all beings to buddhahood, Mahayana aspirants are encouraged to make personal vows in the same spirit.

As an example, here are some of Nagarjuna's, from his Precious Garland:

465. Therefore in the presence of an image
Or stupa or something else
Say these twenty stanzas
Three times every day:

466. Going for refuge with all forms of respect
To the Buddhas, excellent Doctrine,
Supreme Community, and Bodhisattvas,
I bow down to all that are worthy of honor.

467. I will turn away from all ill deeds
And thoroughly take up all meritorious actions.
I will admire all the merits
Of all embodied beings.

468. With bowed head and joined palms
I petition the perfect Buddhas
To turn the wheel of doctrine and remain
As long as transmigrating beings remain.

469. Through the merit of having done thus
And through the merit that I did earlier and will do
May all sentient beings aspire
To the highest enlightenment.

470. May all sentient beings have all the stainless faculties,
Release from all conditions of non-leisure,
Freedom of action,
And endowment with good livelihood.

471. Also may all embodied beings
Have jewels in their hands,
And may all the limitless necessities of life remain
Unconsumed as long as there is cyclic existence.

472. May all beings at all times
Become supreme persons.
May all embodied beings have
The intelligence [of wisdom] and the support [of ethics].

473. May embodied beings have a pleasant complexion,
Good physique, great splendor,
A pleasing appearance, freedom from disease,
Strength, and long life.

474. May all be skilled in the means [to extinguish suffering]
And have liberation from all suffering,
Inclination to the Three Jewels,
And the great wealth of Buddha's doctrine.

475. May they be adorned with love, compassion, joy,
Even-mindedness [devoid of] the afflictive emotions,
Giving, ethics, patience, effort,
Concentration, and wisdom.

476. Completing the two collections [of merit and wisdom],
May they have the brilliant marks and beautiful features [even while on the path],
And may they cross without interruption
The ten inconceivable grounds.

477. May I also be adorned completely
With those and all other good qualities,
Be freed from all defects,
And have superior love for all sentient beings.

478. May I perfect all the virtues
For which all sentient beings hope,
And may I always relieve
The sufferings of all embodied beings.

479. May those beings in all worlds
Who are distressed through fear
Become entirely fearless
Even through merely hearing my name.

480. Through seeing or thinking of me or only hearing my name
May beings attain great joy,
Naturalness free from error,
Definiteness toward complete enlightenment,

481. And the five clairvoyances
Throughout their continuum of lives.
May I always in all ways bring
Help and happiness to all sentient beings.

482. May I always without harm
Simultaneously stop
All beings in all worlds
Who wish to commit ill deeds.

483. May I always be an object of enjoyment
For all sentient beings according to their wish
And without interference, as are the earth,
Water, fire, wind, herbs, and wild forests.

484. May I be as dear to sentient beings as their own life,
And may they be even more dear to me.
May their ill deeds fructify for me,
And all my virtues fructify for them.

485. As long as any sentient being
Anywhere has not been liberated,
May I remain [in the world] for the sake of that being
Though I have attained highest enlightenment.

Hi everybody!

I was just reading The Voice of the Silence. I find the 190th Aphorism to be quite in line with the Bodhisattva vow:

"Sweet are the fruits of Rest and Liberation for the sake of Self; but sweeter still the fruits of long and bitter duty. Aye, Renunciation for the sake of others, of suffering fellow men."

http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_VSIL.HTM

I seem to have Buddhism on my mind. This is a comment on Three Refuges, and it speaks much to me. I hope it is not revisionist. but the essence of HPB's.


"The original sense of this formula was extremely profound and beautiful, and conveyed a threefold teaching - or a teaching referring to the three aspects of Esoteric Philosophy -- somewhat as follows: The 'Buddha' has reference to the Adi-Buddha, which we call the First or Unmanifested Logos, or Primeval Spirit in the Universe, manifesting throughout the Universe in a sublime Hierarchy of spiritual beings emanating from itself. These spiritual beings extend from the highest even to the human spheres, and frequently are called in the Esoteric Philosophy, the Hierarchy of Compassion, or sometimes the Sons of Light. It is the Hierarchy of Compassion, or the Sons of Light composing it, and ranging from the Dhyani-Buddhas downward through intermediate grades to the Manushya-Buddhas, which form the Samgha or Company, or Congregation, this being the Third of the Refuges. The Wisdom that is taught by them on the different planes of the Universe and to the different ranges of world spheres, and mystically and traditionally handed down from the highest Dhyani-Buddhas to human disciples is the second Refuge, called in this formula, the Dharma."

The Esoteric Tradition, G. de Purucker, The Secret Doctrine of Gautama the Buddha, pg 92.

Jim B.

HPB in the Theosophical Glossary gives another esoteric view:

Jim,

I think it is valuable to repeat something HPB once said. She said that Theosophy does not ask a person to quit their religion. In contract, it asks that a Christian remain a Christian, that a Buddhist remain a Buddhist, etc. Your desire to achieve a deeper understanding of your Buddhism is quite within the goals of Theosophy.

Theosophy merely wishes to help a Buddhist understand what Buddha really taught. If there is anyway we can help you in this, you only need to ask. This is what Theosophy is for. We find your questions and observations about Buddhism to be valuable. Ask more questions, and make more observations!

And, I must ask: Do you have any doubt that you were a Buddhist in your last lifetime? Is your attraction to the Three Jewels so mysterious?

I am reminded of when I went to Japan, and went to see the big Buddha statue just south of Tokyo (Kamakura).

http://www.jref.com/gallery/showphoto.php/...48/limit/recent

When I walked into that courtyard, and saw that magnificant three-story statue of Buddha, the first thought that automatically came into my mind was, "Home at last!" Such experiences leave no doubt that I was a Buddhist monk in a previous life. (I wonder if Nicholas has similar inklings....)

Examples of miraculous conversions from Buddhist-to-Christian and Christian-to-Buddhist abound. To me, there is nothing miraculous about these stories — they are merely stories of people being subconsciously re-attracted to memories forgotten due to death and reincarnation.

Nick,
There may be a purpose for exoteric religion, however I don't want to join one, in a certain sense, again. However I, and I do believe that I have been a Buddhist previously, desire to evolve further in Buddhism. It seems that Theosophy unveils the esoteric means.
In my younger years, I hit the skids. They were wasted days. Sins?. I seem to be able to find words of wisdom. I don't hear voices; however, pages of books fall into my lap.
I just recently read in Dialogues of G.de P., a student questioning,
K.T. once said to me in speaking of what she went through in her earlier life, before she was identified with this Movement -she had such terrible things to pass through; they were things that you would have imagined she would have been evolved enough to escape - "I had to do these things in order to understand in this body the suffering of humanity in all these different situations."
G.d.P, comments on HPB earlier life and part of it being her karmic hangover.
"From the ordinary worldly standpoint, it was a grotesque act. From H.P.B.'s standpoint it was a fine act."

BTW, better get Jon some sunscreen.

Jim,

You said,

"There may be a purpose for exoteric religion, however I don't want to join one, in a certain sense, again."

--> HPB said we are members of no religion, but we are members of all religions.

"G.d.P, comments on HPB earlier life and part of it being her karmic hangover."

--> I believe we cannot achieve Enlightenment until we have burned off all of our bad karma. I am particularly struck by how much HPB suffered. I wonder if she had advanced so much as a great soul, yet was still carrying around a large load of unburned-off karma. I think this is a danger all of us may face — achieving a high level of Buddhic consciousness, yet still be carrying around a ton of bad karma. I wonder if many of us will be in the same boat that HPB was in. Perhaps we should stop making self-improvement our first priority, and make burning-off-bad-karma our first priority? That way, when we reach our last few incarnations, we won't get stuck suffering a great deal like HPB?

My past experience has become a foundation for the service work I now do.

At the shelter, 95% of the guests have some sort of substance abuse problem. I understand what they are experiencing.

I also have such empathy for those struggling to overcome their addiction, hoping that they can be succesful in their struggle as I was. It is not easy for most, and the thought of their failure is heartbreaking to me. There is not much I can do - it is something they have to want to do, and pretty much do themselves. The shelter does have a partnership with a local drug/alchohol treatment organization, and they are trained to help, whereas I am not.

All I can do is be there, be non-judgemental/critical, be positive, supportive, etc.


I do believe that some of us incarnate with certain challenges, so that we may then better serve.


Woof.

Jon,

I have heard the old adage that, it takes an ex-drunk to counsel a drunk. Your past experiences may give you an insight to those people that we had not considered before. Thank you for sharing that with us.

We have heard of your work with the people at the shelter, and we are continually impressed and inspired by the work you do. I do not know if you even bothered to take a Bodhisattva vow, you just go out and do the work of a Bodhisattva.

Good for you.

My vow (like the original ES vow) is to my higher-self, and I don't believe I've ever tried to express it in any certain words.


AA's Twelfth Step: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I was never involved with AA, but by brother has been in the program for some 25+ years, and has been a sponsor for many men. My grandpa, the country preacher, was a chaplain for the local AA group, and I was dragged off to meetings when I was very young - too young to understand what it was all about. I still have memories to this day - It made quite an impression on me.


And for those who are interested: Hesed House

Jon, great work. I have not attended A.A. in over 20 years. It was a great experience when I did attend, as most bared their souls.

I quoted Alan E. Donat, on the Lam Rim Chen Mo, " Human beings unconsciously practice mantras, rituals, and visualizations all the time through their speech, routines, and entertainments."

You wrote on another thread,"Certain the Theosophist was wise not to act on his desire, but thoughts are things. A thought is our progeny, the birth of an elemental, one day to be a man."

I had read a little on elementals, however thought this had to do with elements and nature spirits.

Looking in The Theosophical Encyclopedia I see HPB saying, " Elemental are also connected with the animation of thought-forms produced by human beings. Due to elementals, thoughts become active intelligences after they are produced and may persist for a long or short period depending upon the intensity with which they were produced. As such they become sources of influence to the minds of people - becoming a beneficent power if good, or a maleficent demon if evil. They thus become agents of karma. Due to the above-mentioned property, elementals return to humanity the quality of thoughts and feelings that they receive from people. The best protection against the malefic influence of elementals "is a clear conscience and a firm desire of benefiting Humanity." (CW XII:535)

So it seems, that the paramitas or virtues perfected by a Bodhisattva would help in the eradication of improper deeds and thoughts. (Any recommendations on developing these, in word or practice?). It is a scary thought that we can create monsters.

Jim B.

Jim,

More than one Theosophical author has remarked on the power of thought-forms that we create just by thinking them. Different Theosophical authors have warned us that, by simply thinking a thought, we are creating a great deal more than we think we are.

When I get on this topic, I always think of pornography. People think there is no harm in pornography. I disagree. I think that a girl portrayed in such pictures is affected by each and every man that thinks a negative thought about her. If you think about how millions of men may look at a single picture (and send negative thought-forms to one particular girl), I think you can understand that the girl will definitely be negatively affected by those millions of thought-forms. Theosophy is one the loudest voices in the world telling us about the evils of such thought-forms.

Jon,

You said,

"My vow (like the original ES vow) is to my higher-self...."

--> I like that. That is the way of looking at it that I have been looking for.

This post may be a bit of a jumble, however considering the territory covered, you may understand why.

I do not understand the need of forming the E.S., and what were (are) the differences between the two. Most religions have a hierarchy, and for those who wish to advance, the secrets of the higher class are for many, a desirable path.

Within Theosophy there is the E.S., and it seems that a few wished a more separate organization. I.E. LCC, co-masons, and Yeats and the Golden Dawn.

Is there still a portion of the many Theosophical Societies, that have a desire to grade up to the ES.

Jim B.

Jim,

I think of the E.S as just a group of Theosophists who have really decided to get serious about this. As you may know, the E.S requires people to be celibate, vegetarian, etc. I think the idea is to just give each other a little support and comraderie in this potentially daunting endeavor.

As a matter of fact, it is thanks to a discussion I have with Jon that I am, for the first time in my life, considering becoming vegetarian. (So far, no luck. Bummer.)

For those who are willing to make the "huge" changes to their lifestyle that we are talking about, I think the E.S is a good idea.

By the way, I believe things like being celibate, vegetarian, etc., are required to achieve Enlightenment. (I realize this may a radical idea to some people.)

Hi all,

Nick says:

As a matter of fact the ES membership does not require being celibate. It requires to have a chaste, pure, sexual life, without excess or improper relationships. Celibate is required for practical occultism. But I think a person could even be a lay chela without being celibate (although it requires things that are more difficult than being celibate).
To be member of the ES you have also to give up meat, alcohol and drugs. But since the external renunciation to something is only a partial step if the desire for that is still there, I would say that it is the other way around: after you give up those things you may take advantage of being an ES member. It is supposed that you enter in the ES to follow a life with certain discipline, trying to be more sensible to your spiritual nature. And meat, alcohol, drugs and a dissipated sexual life are the more basic things that will prevent you from that development. Thus, a person should not see those rules as conditions to enter in the ES but as a mark that s/he is in tune with the work the ES is trying to do.
Therefore, the ES is not an elite, it is open to everybody who have realized the necessity of fulfilling those conditions. It is the same when you join the TS; you have to give up to your religious fanaticism, your racism, etc. It is not a “rule”, but only the foundation to the work you are going to do in the TS.
Of course, it does not mean that every ES member that follows those rules is really in tune with the work. Many people may give up to those things out of ambition, etc., or may have other selfish features. That is their own problem.
Sometimes people outside the ES tend to see that group as an elite; they feel they are being left out of something, as if they were not worthy. I can understand that, but that idea is not there either institutionally or in any earnest ES member. It is obvious that many good Theosophists are outside the ES. It is just a group of people that is trying to follow certain particular path or system of development. That’s all.

Pablo,

Thank you for bringing this information to our attention. I guess I always wondered if the Esoteric Section was some kind of "secret society" within Thosophy. I am glad to see it is not.

I had thought celibacy was required to enter the ES. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

It is fascinating to consider if celibacy is required for these three levels along the path:

1. Membership in the ES — No
2. Chelaship — Yes?
3. Adeptship — Yes

I thought I would post a few quotes that relate to celibacy and passion for people who are at the three different levels.

Adepts cannot marry:

"It is true a married man cannot become an Adept...." (Mahatma Letters, p. 17)

A Chela must remove passions:

"The passions, the affections are not to be indulged in by him, who seeks to KNOW; for they "wear out the earthly body with their own secret power; and he, who would gain his aim — must be cold." He must not even desire too earnestly or too passionately the object he would reach: else, the very wish will prevent the possibility of its fulfillment, at best — retard and throw it back. . . ." (Mahatma Letters, p. 274)

The following quote struck me quite hard. I do not have alcohol in my house, but I do have meat. It had never occured to me that the Mahatmas would feel uncomfortable in any house that had meat or alcohol. Imagine, my house is unfit for a visit from the Mahatmas!:

"Since my return I found it impossible for me to breathe — even in the atmosphere of the Headquarters! M. had to interfere, and to force the whole household to give up meat; and they had, all of them, to be purified and thoroughly cleansed with various disinfecting drugs before I could even help myself to my letters." (Mahatma Letters, p. 276)

Chelas must govern their animal passions:

"Fasting, meditation, chastity of thought, word, and deed; silence for certain periods of time to enable nature herself to speak to him who comes to her for information; government of the animal passions and impulses; utter unselfishness of intention, the use of certain incense and fumigations for physiological purposes, have been published as the means since the days of Plato and Iamblichus in the West, and since the far earlier times of our Indian Rishis." (Mahatma Letters, p. 283)

A Chela must conquer lust:

"The victor's crown is only for him who proves himself worthy to wear it; for him who attacks Mara single handed and conquers the demon of lust and earthly passions...." (Mahatma Letters, p. 316)

HPB was too passionate to become an Adept:

"Of course, [HPB] is utterly unfit for a true adept: her nature is too passionately affectionate and we have no right to indulge in personal attachments and feelings." (Mahatma Letters, p. 314)

Duty is to the Master is stronger than any love:

"But my first duty is to my Master. And duty, let me tell you, is for us, stronger than any friendship or even love; as without this abiding principle which is the indestructible cement that has held together for so many milleniums, the scattered custodians of nature's grand secrets — our Brotherhood, nay, our doctrine itself — would have crumbled long ago into unrecognizable atoms." (Mahatma Letters, p. 351)

A Chela must shut out every passion that leads to evil.

“…the pilgrim who ventures upon it is made first to confront and conquer the thousand and one furies who keep watch over its adamantine gates and entrance — furies called Doubt, Skepticism, Scorn, Ridicule, Envy and finally Temptation — especially the latter; and that he, who would see beyond had to first destroy this living wall; that he must be possessed of a heart and soul clad in steel, and of an iron, never failing determination and yet be meek and gentle, humble and have shut out from his heart every human passion, that leads to evil." (Mahatma Letters, p. 352)

Mr. A.P. Sinnett was told that being married and a father, needing a career to support them, and consuming meat and drink automatically disqualifed him from Chelaship.

“You are not born for [Chelaship]; nor are you in a position, — a family man with wife and child to support, with work to do — fitted in any way for the life of an ascetic, not even of a — Mohini. Then why should you complain that powers are not given you, that even proof of our own powers begins to fail you, etc.? True you have offered several times to give up meat and drink, and I have refused. Since you cannot become a regular chela why should you?. ” (Mahatma Letters, p. 352)

It seems that the first qualification for acceptance into the Mahatma’s work is unselfishness.

“Some, most unjustly, try to make [Olcott] and H.P.B., solely responsible for the state of things. Those two are, say, far from perfect — in some respects, quite the opposite. But they have that in them (pardon the eternal repetition but it is being as constantly overlooked) which we have but too rarely found elsewhere — UNSELFISHNESS, and an eager readiness for self-sacrifice for the good of others; what a "multitude of sins" does not this cover! It is but a truism, yet I say it, that in adversity alone can we discover the real man. It is a true manhood when one boldly accepts one's share of the collective Karma of the group one works with, and does not permit oneself to be embittered, and to see others in blacker colors than reality, or to throw all blame upon some one "black sheep," a victim, specially selected. Such a true man as that we will ever protect and despite his shortcomings, assist to develop the good he has in him. Such an one is sublimely unselfish; he sinks his personality in his cause, and takes no heed of discomforts or personal obloquy unjustly fastened upon him. ” (Mahatma Letters, p. 352)

Well, two thoughts.

First, no booze. However, we do have meat in our household. Of course, my wife being Native, has lived on deer since she was a child. They were so poor that she as a child survived on macaroni twice a day. They did catch a deer once in awhile, and were able to catch salmon in the river. Things are better now, and we try to eat healthy, with whole grains and meat. When I was young, I tried macrobiotics and veg. Now I wonder if I need protein. I was told I did, as I have Hep. C. Probably got it in the late '60's, though fits. That was 40 years ago, and I'm still kicking. My Irish blood must give me a strong liver, however if I drank, I'd be gone. One thing that I feel uncomfortable with, is killing, so I believe that I shall not hunt anymore. Never was a fan, however I thought it was a duty for the family.
It was never hard to harvest a salmon, but killing a deer is another story. They have such beautiful eyes. So, one step in the right path, is to restrain from killing, and as I have read, that is a good start.

Second, I appreciate the Mahatma's views. The more I consider the Path, the more I see the need to work on the Paramitas. I strive for enlightenment and the degrees, but one thought that Theosophy is teaching me, is that we are evolving.
That is reassuring.

Also, I am beginning to fall for the Lam Rim. I will end by one comment, that seems relevant.

Guru Rahulagupta also said:
Seeing visions of tutelary deities, achieving clairvoyance and miraculous powers, and having mountain-range-firm concentration get you nowhere on their own. Meditate on love and compassion!

Jim B.

Hi Nick,

Your compilation is very interesting. But there is something else that makes things more difficult: the overcoming of desire must not be based on repression but on spiritual maturity, so to say. At http://www.katinkahesselink.net/elixir.htm there is an article entitled The Elixir of Life where we find very interesting suggestions. I give some excerpts below:

“And it may be mentioned that all sense of restraint - even if self-imposed - is useless. Not only is all "goodness" that results from the compulsion of physical force, threats, or bribes (whether of physical or so-called "spiritual" nature) absolutely useless to the person who exhibits it, its hypocrisy tending to poison moral atmosphere of the world, but the desire to be "good" or "pure," to be efficacious must be spontaneous. It must be a self-impulse from within, a real preference for something higher, not an abstention from vice because of fear of the law: not a chastity enforced by the dread of Public Opinion; not a benevolence exercised through love of praise or dread of consequences in a hypothetical Future Life.
(...)
"Virtue" may be very good in its way - it may lead to the grandest results. But to become efficacious it has to be practiced cheerfully not with reluctance or pain.
(...)
What physical desires are to be abandoned and in what order? First and foremost, he must give up alcohol in all forms; for while it supplies no nourishment, nor any direct pleasure (beyond such sweetness or fragrance as may be gained in the taste of wine, &c., to which alcohol, in itself, is non-essential) to even the grossest elements of the "physical" frame, it induces a violence of action, a rush so to speak, of life, the stress of which can only be sustained by very dull, gross, and dense elements, and which, by the operation of the well-known law of Re-action (in commercial phrase, "supply and demand") tends to summon them from the surrounding universe, and therefore directly counteracts the object we have in view.
Next comes meat-eating, and for the very same reason, in a minor degree. It increases the rapidity of life, the energy of action, the violence of passions. It may be good for a hero who has to fight and die, but not for a would-be sage, who has to exist and . . . .
Next in order come the sexual desires; for these, in addition to the great diversion of energy (vital force) into other channels, in many different ways, beyond the primary one (as, for instance, the waste of energy in expectation, jealousy, &c.) are direct attractions to a certain gross quality of the original matter of the Universe, simply because the most pleasurable physical sensations are only possible at that stage of density. Alongside with and extending beyond all these and other gratifications of the senses (which include not only those things usually known as "vicious," but all those which, though ordinarily regarded as "innocent," have yet the disqualification of ministering to the pleasures of the body - the most harmless to others and the least "gross" being the criterion for those to be last abandoned in each case) - must be carried on the moral purification.
(...)
Nor is it of any use for this particular purpose of longevity to abstain from immorality so long as you are craving for it in your heart; and so on with all other unsatisfied inward cravings. To get rid of the inward desire is the essential thing, and to mimic the real thing without it is barefaced hypocrisy and useless slavery."

Jim,

I think everyone agrees that if someone is starving, they need to eat whatever they can get, even if it is meat. I do not think anyone would have a problem with this.

You have brought up a fascinating concept, the difference between killing a salmon fish and killing a deer. As it just so happens, Theosophy has something to say about such an idea. According to Theosophy, all animals belong to group-souls. This means that a particular group of animals constitute one group-soul. Less advanced animals belong to a group-soul that has thousands of members (like a school of tiny fish), while evolutionarily advanced animals (like cats and dogs) belong to a group-soul that has a small number of members.

It is easy to imagine that a school of thousands of tiny fish all belong to a single group-soul, because they all act as one. Not too long ago, I heard that, if a couple of sheep escape from a yard, you might as well let all of the other sheep out too, because they are all trying to regroup into one group. This shows how all sheep of one flock are of one group-soul. It is the natural tendency of all sheep of one flock (and of one group-soul) to want to clump together at all times.

Now we can discuss the idea that there are more advanced and less advanced animals. Quite naturally, the less advanced animals have groups with thousands of members. It is quite easy to see how thousands of tiny fish in one school of fish all belong to the same group-soul.

The more mature an animal is, the smaller number of members its group-soul will have. I have to wonder if all cats of one litter belong to a single group-soul, which means the total number of members of a typical cat group-soul would be four or five.

This brings us to the idea that killing a salmon might be easier for us to do than killing a deer. I can see how a deer could be considered a much more advanced type of animal than a salmon. I think we could see symptoms of indivduality and uniqueness in two deer that would probably be impossible to see in two salmon. Clearly, a deer is more evolutionarily advanced than a salmon. We can only wonder if a deer is close to individualization (and seemingly ready for its first human incarnation), while a salmon is nowhere near ready for individualization.

In conclusion, Theosophy makes sense of how you could recoil in horror in killing a deer, yet not do so in killing a salmon.

Pablo,

"...the overcoming of desire must not be based on repression but on spiritual maturity..."

"...all sense of restraint - even if self-imposed - is useless.... It must be a self-impulse from within, a real preference for something higher, not an abstention from vice because of fear of the law: not a chastity enforced by the dread of Public Opinion...."

I think that both quotations are in agreement, although they may not seem to be in agreement. I think the idea is, the overcoming of desire must not be based on repression from without, but can be based on repression from within a person.

I disagree with this isolated sentence: "...all sense of restraint - even if self-imposed - is useless.... " A self-impulse from within can be self-imposed. I gave up alcohol years ago. I did not do it because of public opinion, or anything like that. I just decided alcohol was bad, and so I self-imposed a rule that I would stop drinking. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that the overcoming of desire based on "repression from within" can very much be based on spiritual maturity.

I suppose the above quote which contains the word "restraint" means only restraint that is gained through internalized social taboos, and does not include restraint that a person decides to do because they decide by themself it is right. Such a definition of "restraint" seems to me to be incorrect.

Here is Purucker on Group soul:

I've been rereading this subject, and am reminded of Chogyam Trungpa. I do not see that enlightenment can brake the bounds of restraining. It reminds me of antinominism. At one time, I thought that maybe crazy wisdom released us from the restraint based on public opinion. However, and I hope with spiritual maturity, that we should be developing an abstention of vice, by being in touch with our higher manas.

Jim B.

Jim,

I think what the writer was trying to say is, we cannot be coerced into spiritual development, we can only do it of our own free will. Once we decide to do it of our own free will, then self-restraint-from-within is a good thing.

It would seem to me that self-restraint-from-within is better than self-restraint-from-without.

If Sinnet was ready for chelaship, he would not have 'offered' to give up meat and drink - he would have done so - compelled to do so by his higher self.

This subject of repression, restraint, etc. is a quite complex one. By repression I mean an unconscious or semi-conscious blocking of something we don’t like. That is useless. Regarding restraint (that is, the conscious control of some desire, reaction, etc.), I would say it is useful as a first step, because through that restraint we are weakening the desire or reaction. But, it usually doesn’t go to the root cause (unless the desire/reaction is a superficial one).
I think there are two ways to uproot a tendency: one is through viveka khyati, the spiritual (not intellectual) discernment or insight through a silent, non dual, non manipulative, observation.
The second way is described in Light on the Path:

Pablo,

That is a good definition and clarification between repression and restraint. Clearly, unconsciously repressing emotions is unhealthy, and leads to neurosis.

The more we can consciously deal with our issues and emotional needs, the better.

You have also brought up an important idea, that of the difference between cognition and meditation (in problem-solving). I think what you are saying is, we can find answers by going through a problem logically, and reasoning out a solution. We can also find an answer to a problem by meditating on it, and have the answer appear to us as a spontaneous meditative insight that "comes to us from out of nowhere".