Please feel free to check out the Buddhist Forum.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/

It has thousands of members, and you can find a discussion on all topics in Buddhism, no matter which tradition within Buddhist you may be familiar.

E-sanga doesn't mind too much if you jump in as a theosophist, though it is of course appreciated if you do phrase opinions respectfully. Also it may be useful to realize that as a theosophist your opinions are likely to be closest to the Mahayana position on many subjects.

Katinka,

I have made it clear that I am not a Buddhist, and have phrased my posts respectfully. However, whenever I post an idea that is "anti-Buddhist," I am quickly told that I am engaging in "Wrong Thought." That is OK. If it gets people thinking critically about ideas they have always accepted, that is a good thing.

The big difference between Theosophy and Buddhism, of course, is the concept of a "soul" or Atman. Theosophy teaches the idea of Atman, while Buddhism teaches against it. (This is why I no longer call myself a Buddhist....)

Here is a new (to me) Buddhist discussion group:

http://www.buddhachat.org/forum/index.php

Actually the Buddha taught against the idea of an atma, that when described, sounds awfully like a personality. So basically he said that the personality is not eternal, which Blavatsky totally agrees with. It's why she denied reincarnation in Isis Unveiled I think.

Nick,

Leaving aside the question of what atman is, HPB's gurus did call themselves Buddhists and consider Buddha the patron of all in the Occult Brotherhood. Dip into Mahatma Letters #10 & 22.

Hi, kh7, it is good to see you on the Forum again!

I believe this discussion of Buddha's teaching/non-teaching of Atman boils down to the idea of exoteric vs. esoteric teaching, which HPB has often written about. I believe a lot of what Gautama taught was in reaction to things in Hinduism that he did not like. It seems (to me at least) that, whenever a Hindu has a problem, they will often pray to an image of a god for help. I think Gautama was trying to stop this type of behavior.

I also remember an HPB quote which said Gautama was in a quandry about how much of the teachings to release exoterically, and that he decided to leave out a lot (on the Atman, for example), which HPB herself said was a mistake. Today, fortunately, we have Theosophy, which can fill up any holes that were left in Gautama's exoteric teachings.

I believe HPB mentioned the belief in the Atman in Buddhism, but as an esoteric teaching. (This would explain the Mahatmas identifying themselves as Buddhists, as Nicholas has said.) If you would like, I will try to dig up some quotes. The book The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky, compiled and annotated by Henk J. Spierenburg, quickly comes to mind.

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/spierbuddhism.htm

I would agree with you that the personality/Atma is not eternal, perhaps only sticking around for a few zillion years.

You said,

"It's why she denied reincarnation in Isis Unveiled I think."

--> If you can dig up that quote, I would like to take a look at it. Do you feel that reincarnation is not a valid concept?

Hi Nick, I thought I'd begin my tenure here by adding what I know to this thread. The dominant religion in India at the time of Siddharta Gautama was a form of Brahmanism, and holy people of that time are referred to in the Darmaphadda (Sayings of the Buddha) as Brahmins. Hinduism didn't really take off in India until about 500 years after Gautama's time. Sikhism came about after that when certain Islamic principles were embraced by Indians who disagreed with the caste system inherent within Hinduism.

For myself, I tend not to post on the online Buddhist forum, as, although principally I am a Buddhist of the Mahayana tradition, I came to the religion via Theosophy, and Blavatsky's work. HPB and H.S. Olcott did much to bring Buddhism to the West, and it greatly saddens me that many Buddhists, especially Westerners, don't give Blavatsky the credit she deserves, and tend to dismiss her teachings as New-Age philosophy. If I had to describe my tradition more accurately, I guess you could say I am a Buddhist of the Theosophical tradition. :)

Hi Seeker, and welcome to the Forum.

We have something in common, in that it was my studies of Theosophy that lead me to call myself a Buddhist for many years. (I have since stopped calling myself a Buddhist....)

Yes, HPB's place in history (especially regarding western Buddhists) is a sad tale indeed. HPB is given the credit of popularizing the ideas of karma and reincarnation in the west. If it had not been for HPB, I believe there would be a lot fewer western Buddhists!

HPB's legacy is immense. She may not receive credit for what she has done, but we can bask in the light of how her teachings have (anonymously) spread across the world.

I do post in the Buddhist Forum (my username there is Skywalker) because a lot of Buddhism is in harmony with Theosophy. When I find a question that has the same Buddhist and Theosophical answer, I jump right in. (There are, however, questions where the Theosophical and Buddhist answer diverge, in which case I reman silent.)

Please feel free to share more of what Theosophy means to you. I am especially curious in any Theosophical concepts that appeal to you, or ones that you wish more explanantion of. (Or concepts that you can explain to the rest of us!)

Thanks for the welcome Nick. For me, Theosophy makes a great deal of sense. I've always felt that there was some kind of underlying philosophy behind every religion- something that links them all to a common originator, and upon reading HPB's The Secret Doctrine, many of my questions were answered. It staggers me that many of the principles she outlined in her work in the late 1800's are being proved by cutting-edge quantum physics today. Modern science seems to be proving her right, yet still hasn't quite cracked the complete truth, simply because most scientists today can't accept the notion of spirit or soul. When you include that in your calculations, it all falls into place, as HPB found.

Take the most recent advances in quantum string theory. Scientists have proved, mathematically, that particles called quantum string exist, because every particle of matter is composed from them, and analysis of their behaviour ties every known principle of physics together; scientists are all abuzz with the notion that they will soon discover the 'theory of everything', which will explain the greatest mysteries of all, and how quantum string theory appears to be providing them with the answers. What they can't explain is how quantum string particles seem to behave in ways that inanimate matter shouldn't- as if, somehow, they seem to have consciousness, awareness, or direction. It's my earnest belief that what they have discovered is Mulapakriti, the esoteric building blocks of the universe, and all organic life.

As for how I am able to assimilate all this within my Buddhist beliefs, my viewpoint is this: According to Wikipedia and many other sources, the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism holds that enlightenment can be achieved through study, meditation and the eightfold path, and is more esoteric in nature compared with many other traditions. Outside of Tibet, I think that many Westerners that have taken up Buddhist practises have found the esoteric side of study to be the hardest part to adapt to, and tend to fight shy of it, mainly because of the stigma attached to such things because of their largely traditional Christian upbringing up until then. To my mind, Buddhism is the only way I can describe my personal beliefs- so much of what HPB wrote ties in with many of the Sutras esoterically and exoterically, that it is almost impossible to explain them through any other belief system.

HPB was definitely familiar with Buddhism. I enjoy the early Adyar literature, where HPB was pro-Buddhist, Annie Besant was pro-Hinduism, and Leadbeater was pro-Christianity. It certainly gave everything a "well-rounded" feeling!

Are you more with the Adyar group or more with the Judge group?

Welcome Seeker!

I also came to the Mahayana thanks to the praise given it by Blavatsky & her gurus.

Widespread respect for HPB was not her karma when she was alive, and nothing has changed in the 116 years since her death.

I'm more towards the Adyar group myself, as well, although leaning more towards Blavatsky herself. Apart from The Secret Doctrine, which is one of the new re-pressings, I've been very lucky in securing, via an antique bookshop in Camden Lock, a few original copies of works by Theosophists, such as 'The Mind Of Annie Besant', and Annies' book 'Seven Great Religions', as well as C.W. Leadbetters' 'How Theosophy Came To Me'. (Leadbetters' book has a stamp confirming it as part of the library of a Theosophical lodge in London, and is even signed!) I find them to be absolutely fascinating reading, and I have no trouble in assimilating them with Buddhist texts, such as the Dharmapadda and the Siddharma Pundarikka (Lotus Sutra), or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I believe that my late fathers' copy of the Baghavad Ghitta is Annie Besant's translation, so I must check that out.

I honestly think that my previous incarnation was some kind of Victorian philanthropist and oriental scholar, as I find many Asian religious studies of this period to be an absolute delight!

Seeker,

I am also a follower of the Adyar tradition. I envy you, with your collection of valuable books. By the way, we have a section in this Forum called, "What are you reading now?" It would be fascinating to hear your thought on one of those books. As a matter of fact, I just finished reading Annie Besant's Seven Religions, and I am posting the gist of her observations on the seven religions in this Religions and Philosophies section (when I get time).

You may have been an oriental scholar in the past? Do you speak any oriental languages? (I speak Japanese.)