Hi everybody!

One of the biggest differences between Buddhism and Theosophy is that Buddhism teaches there is no soul or Atman, while Theosophy ways there is an Atman. Here is a quote that helps us understand the Theosophical position.

"Attavâda [is] the heresy of the belief in Soul or rather in the separateness of Soul or Self from the One Universal, infinite SELF."

page 74,

Blavatsky, H.P., The Voice of the Silence (online)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/avoice.htm#f1

Blavatsky, H.P., The Voice of the Silence (hardcopy)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/silence.htm

Theosophy, therefore, agrees in principle with the Buddhist idea that the soul or Atman does not exist in the sense it is something separate from the Absolute. (Theosophy and Buddhism agree that nothing in the physical universe really exists anyway, no more so the Atman than anything else.)

Christian,

My understanding is, Buddhists say the "mind" travels from birth to birth. I am not sure how they define "mind". I am not sure how they say karma is recorded (in the mind) and accessed from birth to birth either.

I have found a fair amount of resistence on this topic when I discuss it with Buddhists, because it it universally accepted that no soul travels from birth to birth.

It is important to note that many Buddhists do not believe in physical rebirth (which was a big shock for me the first time I heard it). In this situation, discussing what travels from birth to birth is meaningless.

It is also important to note that Theosophy says the Lower Mind does not travel from incaranation to incarnation, therefore (according to Theosophy) some other type of vehicle -- besides the mind -- must travel from incarnation to incarnation.

By the way, the Buddhist refusal to accept the idea of a soul is the one thing that prevents me from being a Buddhist.

Christian,

You said,

"I am having a hard time grasping these Buddhist views."

--> (1) Forgive me, I have spent decades studying Buddhist philosophy, while you have not. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. (2) I know that Christianity has no teachings similar to the idea of self vs. no-self. Therefore, I can see how it would be difficult for a Christian to grasp such a concept for the first time.

"Perhaps there is no 'vehicle' per se, for the mind."

--> Well, this gets into the whole difference between Buddhist and Theosophical theory regarding the Atman. One could argue that (1) the mind has no vehicle (which sounds more like a Buddhist idea), (2) any vehicle for the mind is only temporary, and no more permanent than the mind, or (3) both the mind and a vehicle for the mind do not really exist anyway (which agrees with both Buddhist and Theosophical philosophies, but in a different way.)

"We've got that whole Higher/Lower mind thing, and personality aspect going on."

--> It is the interplay of these three "objects" that makes a human being so complex.

"...I seem to be mentally putting it on the back burner till I'm ready to fully grasp it."

--> Feel free to ask questions as they come up.

"I also wonder if I don't have a 'diversion' to accepting philosphies about our mind, right now."

--> Perhaps you are referring to a modern psychological definition of mind vs. a Theosophical or Buddhist definition. What similarities or differences do you see?

"As a Christian, I find I have to accept some things, and not accept a lot of others."

--> (1) And Theosophy encourages you to do so! Theosophy is not about dogma, Theosophy is about helping you decide what makes sense to you. (2) To switch from Christianity to Theosophy is a big switch. The two philosophies are very different (radically different, I would say), and I can see how a Christian would revolt at the idea. Theosophy asks a Christian to throw out some of their most basic religious beliefs.

Theosophy definitely disagrees with Christianity on several points. Feel free to bring up these differences, if you wish.

"Which is why Theosophy can be so fulfilling."

--> I like Theosophy because it gives me answers I cannot find anywhere else.

The world is too much with me of late, so I have little time for this board. It will stay that way for another month or two, I reckon.

I would suggest that certain Buddhist notions regarding Alaya & the Yogacara system be studied along with the theosophical view of alaya & the auric envelope (or egg).

HPB or one of her teachers once said that Theosophy was close to Yogacara buddhism, but not exactly it.

Here is a snip on Consciousness as outlined by yogacara:

This article is pretty technical, but see the bolded para near the end.

Alaya Vijnana
Store Consciousness
By Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula

In the Yogacara (Vijnanavada) School of Buddhism, alaya Vijnana is one of the most important doctrines developed by Asanga (fourth century C.E.). He divides the Vijnana skandha (Aggregate of Consciousness) the fifth of the five skandhas, into three different aspects or layers, namely, citta, manas and Vijnana. In the Theravada Tipitaka as well as in the Pali Commentaries, these three terms - citta, manas, Vijnana - are considered as synonyms denoting the same thing. The Sarvistivada also takes them as synonyms. Even the Lankavatara Sutra, which is purely a Mahayana text, calls them synonyms although their separate functions are mentioned elsewhere in the same sutra. Vasubandhu, too, in his Vimsatikavijnapti-matratasiddhi considers them as synonyms. Since any one of these three terms - citta, manas, Vijnanas - represents some aspect, even though not all aspects, of the fifth Aggregate Vijnana skandha, they may roughly be considered as synonyms.

However, for Asanga, citta, manas and Vijnana are three different and distinct aspects of the Vijnana skandha. He defines this Aggregate as follows:

'What is the definition of the Aggregate of Consciousness (Vijnana skandha)? It is mind (citta), mental organ (manas) and also consciousness (Vijnana).

"And there what is mind (citta)? It is alaya Vijnana (Store-Consciousness) containing all seeds (sarvabijaka), impregnated with the traces (impressions) (vasanaparibhavita) of Aggregates (skandha), Elements (dhatu) and Spheres (ayatana)...

'What is mental organ (manas)? It is the object of alaya Vijnana always having the nature of self-notion (self-conceit) (manyanatmaka) associated with four defilements, viz. the false idea of self (atmadrsti), self-love (atmasneha), the conceit of 'I am' (asmimana) and ignorance (avidya)...

'What is consciousness (Vijnana)? It consists of the six groups of consciousness (sad vijnanakayah), viz. visual consciousness (caksurvijnana), auditory (srotra), olfactory (ghrana), gustatory (jihva), tactile (kaya), and mental consciousness (mano Vijnana)...

Thus we can see that vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the Vijnana skandha. Manas represent the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta, which is here called alaya Vijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of Consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future potentialities. The Sandhinirmocana-Sutra also says that alaya Vijnana is called citta (Tibetan sems).

It is generally believed that alaya Vijnana is purely a Mahayana doctrine and that nothing about it is found in Hinayana. But in the Mahayanasangraha, Asanga himself says that in the Sravaka-yana (equals Hinayana) it is mentioned by synonyms (paryaya) and refers to a passage in the Ekottaragama which reads: 'People (praja) like the alaya (alayarata), are fond of the alaya (alayarama), are delighted in the alaya (alayasammudita), are attached to the alaya (alayabhirata). When the Dharma is preached for the destruction of the alaya, they wish to listen (susrusanti) and lend their ears (srotram avadadhanti), they put forth a will for the perfect knowledge (ajnacittam upasthapayanti) and follow the path of Truth (dharmanudharma-pratipanna). When the Tathagata appears in the world (pradurbhava), this marvelous (ascarya) and extraordinary (adbhuta) Dharma appears in the world.'

Lamotte identifies this Ekottaragama passage with the following passage in the Pali Anguttaranikaya (A II, p.131): Alayarama bhikkhave paja alayarata alayasammudita, sa Tathagatena analaye dhamme desiyamane sussuyati sotam odahati annacittam upattapeti. Tathagatassa bhikkhave arahato sammasambuddhassa patubhava ayam pathamo acchariyo abbhuto dhammo patubhavati.

Besides this Anguttara passage, the term alaya in the same sense is found in several other places of the Pali Canon. The Pali Commentaries explain this term as 'attachment to the five sense-pleasures", and do not go deeper than that. But this also is an aspect of the alaya Vijnana.

In the Lankavatara Sutra the term Tathagata-garbha is used as a synonym for alaya Vijnana and is described as 'luminous by nature' (prakrtiprabhasvara) and 'pure by nature' (prakrtiparisuddha) but appearing as impure 'because it is sullied by adventitious defilements' (agantuklesopaklistataya). In the Anguttaranikaya, citta is described as 'luminous' (pabhassara), but it is 'sullied by adventitious minor defilements' (agantukehi upakkilesehi upakkilittham). One may notice here that alaya-Vijnana (or Tathágata garbha) and citta are described almost by the same terms. We have seen earlier that the Sandhi-nirmocana-sutra says that alaya Vijnana is also called citta. Asanga too mentions that it is named citta.

It is this alaya Vijnana or citta that is considered by men as their "Soul', 'Self', 'Ego' or 'Atman'. It should be remembered as a concrete example, that Sati, one of the Buddha's disciples, took vinnan (vijnana) in this sense and that the Buddha reprimanded him for this wrong view.

The attainment of Nirvana is achieved by 'the revolution of alaya Vijnana' which is called asrayaparavrtti. The same idea is conveyed by the expression alayasamugghata - 'uprooting of alaya' - which is used in the Pali Canon as a synonym for Nirvana. Here it should be remembered, too, that analaya, 'no-alaya', is another synonym for Nirvana.

The alayavijnanaparavrtti is sometimes called bijaparavrtti - 'revolution of the seeds' - as well. Bija here signifies the 'seeds' of defilements (samklesikadharmabija), which cause the continuity of samsara. By the 'revolution of these seeds' one attains Nirvana. Again the Pali term khinabija, which is used to denote an arahant whose seeds of defilements are destroyed', expresses the same idea.

Thus one may see that, although not developed as in the Mahayana, the original idea of alaya Vijnana was already there in the Pali Canon of the Theravada.

Hi everybody!

The differences between Buddhism and Theosophy has been a keen topic here on the Forum. The question may be raised, why is there such a difference between the two philosophies?

It has been said Buddha was in a quandry as to what to teach, and what to leave out. I found this quote:

"...the whole Buddhist reform merely consisted in giving out a portion of that which had been kept secret from every man outside of the "enchanted" circle of Temple-Initiates and ascetics. Unable to teach all that had been imparted to him -- owing to his pledges -- though he taught a philosophy built upon the ground-work of the true esoteric knowledge, the Buddha gave to the world only its outward material body and kept its soul for his Elect....

"That doctrine was preserved secretly -- too secretly, perhaps...."

(SD vol 1 p. xxi)

--> The last three words, "...too secretly, perhaps...." seem to speak volumes. Perhaps Buddha could have given out more exoteric teachings, but chose not to. Blavatsky seems to be saying this is exactly the case. No doubt such extra teachings would have brought Buddhism and Theosophy more into agreement. Or would they? Buddhists say no. Theosophists say yes.

I wonder if Buddha left too much out of his exoteric teachings, and erred in doing so, as Blavatsky seems to be saying.

Could someone elaborate on the question of the difference in the believe of 'Atman' in Theosophical and Buddhist thought then please?

Is the idea of Skandas comparable to a continuity between Lives resulting in return or liberation to a Monad or 'Higher Spirit' in a theosophical sence? In that; though after each life the personality and ego itself might dissolve, the continuity of Karma and disposition in that which reincarnates as Skandas serves as an impermant aggregate which only forms an 'Anata' when one has attained the level of Arhat?

Presumably because K.H. said he was at the level where he would keep his personality for dissolving upon reincarnation because he was at that level of attainment - Would this be applicable to any attainment in Buddhism?

Indeed - If Nirvana itself is the only reality - Is the conciousness in Nirvana the only true thing that could be deemed as 'Anata' in Buddhist thought?

Sorry if the question is a little confused. But if you can understand what i mean any ideas would be great. : )

Thanks

Misoshiru

Hi, Misoshiru, and welcome to the Forum.

You asked,

"Could someone elaborate on the question of the difference in the believe of 'Atman' in Theosophical and Buddhist thought...?"

--> I believe the basic concept of Atman in both Buddhism and theosophy are the same. (The Theosophical version, perhaps, is more complicated.) The main difference between Buddhism and Theosophy is that Theosophists believe in the Atman, while Buddhists do not.

"Is the idea of Skandas comparable to a continuity between Lives resulting in return or liberation to a Monad or 'Higher Spirit' in a theosophical sence?"

--> No. Skandas are like seeds. Skandas are defined as groups of attributes.

"...within, or surrounding, every infant that is born there are potencies which arise when the proper conditions are furnished. The potencies are present due to causes which have been previously engendered. These causes, therefore, lead to the formation of attributes which eventually become manifest as traits or characteristics. These groups of attributes become joined together as the child grows, and in thus uniting become molded into an individual's character. Therefore Skandhas may be defined as the groups of attributes which unite at birth, and in their aggregation constitute the personality." (The Divine Plan, by Geoffrey Barborka, pp. 416-418)

--> Skandas seem to be forms of karma.

"... the 'attributes (Skandhas) for [about-to-be born people] are already formed prior to its entry into the after-death states. Assuredly they must have been formed during life on earth...." (The Divine Divine Plan, by Geoffrey Barborka, pp. 416-418)

--> Skandas, however, are not karma, per se. They are formed by our desires, plans, aspirations, etc., we have while alive.

"The result of a man's thoughts, desires, emotions, plans, hopes and aspirations during earth-life are implanted into the fabric of his being, by the man himself. As man thinks thoughts he fashions his thought-life. This thought-life flows on from day to day becoming an intimate part of himself, his own thought-stream. Into this thought-stream he is contiinually adding new thoughts. These are deposited into his thought-stream as thought-deposits. These thought-deposits or tendericy-seeds are imbeddded in the aura surrounding a person during life, and they aid in the formation of the day-to-day self. A person shows this day-to-day self to the world. It is that which he; has moulded together, resulting from his thoughts and deeds. In short, it is his personality. People become familiar with this personality. As the process continues throughout a lifetime, man is becoming what he longs for. In addition to'the personality that he is creating, he is actually forming his attributes for his next incarnaation on earth. And he is doing this in his daily living. These attributes remain dormant during the after-death states, but spring into life when physical birth takes place. Such is the significance of the term Skandhas." (The Divine Divine Plan, by Geoffrey Barborka, pp. 416-418)

--> Skandas, then, are formed by our aspirations as we go through life. Let me give you an example that contrasts Skandas and Karma. If a person spends several lives in a row playing the piano, they most likely will show an interest and aptitude towards the piano in a subsequent life. Karma, however, may interrupt their piano-playing altogether, so that a more-important karmic debt can be repaid.

You asked,

"...though after each life the personality and ego itself might dissolve, the continuity of Karma and disposition in that which reincarnates as Skandas serves as an impermant aggregate which only forms an 'Anata' when one has attained the level of Arhat?"

--> I assume you mean Anatta. I assume you are using the definition of Anatta as "not having a soul". I also assume you are using the definition of Arhat as someone who is just about to achieve Enlightenment. (This definition is used in Theosophy and Mahayana Buddhism, but is not used in Theravada Buddhism.) I do not see Skandas forming Anatta in an about-to-be-born Arhat. The state called Anatta would not apply to someone still in the midst of physical incarnations.

"Presumably because K.H. said he was at the level where he would keep his personality for dissolving upon reincarnation because he was at that level of attainment - Would this be applicable to any attainment in Buddhism?"

--> No. It would only apply to someone at the Adept level. Adepts are said to "live" at about the Upper Mental Level. Because of this, they have complete control over their mental and astral bodies. As they move from incarnation to incarnation, their mental and astral bodies do not dissolve, but are maintained intact. To answer your question, "Would this be applicable to any attainment in Buddhism?" it would not apply to Beings higher than the Upper Mental Plane, as these Beings do not use mental nor astral bodies.

"Indeed - If Nirvana itself is the only reality - Is the conciousness in Nirvana the only true thing that could be deemed as 'Anata' in Buddhist thought?"

--> I would not say Nirvana is the only reality! Above Nirvana is Parinirvana, and there are states of "reality" even higher than these. But you have asked a good question as to the type of consciousness we will experience in Anatta.

We need to discuss the difference in the definition of the word Anatta between Buddhism and Theosophy. Buddhism teaches Anatta is the extinguishing of the entire person. Theosophy does not. According to Theosophy, Anatta is the extinguishing of only the lower principles of man. This gets back to the idea of Atman. Theosophy says there is an Atman, while Buddhism does not. When the lower principles of a person are finally extinguished, according to Buddhism nothing is left, while according to Theosophy a perfected Atman is left.

Here is the definition of Anatta from Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary.
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/am-ani.htm

"Anatta (Pali) [from an not + atta self, soul] Non-self, nonegoity; a Buddhist doctrine postulating that there is no unchanging, permanent self (atta, Sanskrit atman) in the human being, in contrast to the Upanishad view that the atman or inner essence of a human being is identic with Brahman, the Supreme, which pervades and is the universe. While Gautama Buddha stresses the nonreality of self, regarding as continuous only its attributes (the five khandas; Sanskrit skandhas) which return at rebirth, there is scriptural testimony in both Southern and Northern Schools that the Buddha recognized a fundamental selfhood in the human constitution."

You are asking great questions. Please ask more!

Misoshiru, are you Japanese? Moshi Nihongo o wakareba, zehi, jibun no koto o oshiete kudasai.

— Nikku za Pairotto yori

The issue of karma, atman and reincarnation in Buddhism is very complicated. This is because the terms atman can be understood in very many ways. The common sense view is that karma and reincarnation imply that there is a soul (or a something) that reincarnates. This is therefore a belief many theosophists, Buddhists and Hindus share.
Western Buddhists and educated Buddhists elsewhere know about the anatta doctrine: the doctrine that there is no soul. Yet it's very clear that the Buddha taught karma and rebirth. Combining these two is difficult and the only way to do so is to look at how atma is defined, and how karma is defined. This does - as this discussion has so far - include understanding the skandhas.

The Buddhist school that insists on there being no atman or soul the loudest is the Theravada school. I have an article on my site that presents this point of view: Anatta & rebirth.

I also have an article on my site which combines a look at Mahayana Buddhism and Vedanta: Atman in sunyata

If that isn't enough reading, look at my whole section karma and rebirth.

The main conclusion I've come to is that for both buddhists and theosophists it is not the personality which reincarnates but something else. the theosophical concept of Atman is very impersonal, being ultimately One with Brahman - the soul of the universe. The concept of Atman as present in the Hinduism of the 4th and 5th century before Christ was a lot less abstract: it often just meant personality. So an easy way to solve the conundrum is to say that what the Buddha denied was the idea that the personality reincarnates (and that rituals can help you get enlightened). Of course that solution does ignore 2500 years of scholarly disputes.

KH,

You said,

"...what the Buddha denied was the idea that the personality reincarnates...."

--> That is an interesting way to look at it. I remember reading somewhere that Buddha denied the existence of the Atman, because nothing in this universe really exists, including the Atman. (The idea is that only the One Reality exists.) If someone says the Atman does not exist, because nothing of this universe exists, then I agree with them.

If you are interested, I will try to find that quote.

For those who do not like or understand the non-self teachings of Buddha, here is a famous sutra that presents a nice, plump Atman. The Tathagatagarbha sutras (this Nirvana Sutra is one of them) present a congenial blissful Atman. Whether the truth is with non-atman or atman was decided long ago, by Buddhists. Non-atman was their conclusion. But Buddha also taught an Atman, for those who prefer that notion. So enjoy this lecture and the rest of the site, by Tony Page.

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/theselfatman.htm

Nicholas,

Wow, trying to get today's Buddhists to even consider the "existence" of Atman is going to be an uphill batle.

I guess that is why we have Theosophy, isn't it?