[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: More Comments

Feb 15, 1995 02:21 PM
by K. Paul Johnson

According to Jerry Schueler:

> The problem with religion is that is teaches us that we need to
> be saved from something, and each denomination offers its own
> path toward salvation.  I like theosophy because it steers clear
> of such things.  What is it that we need to be saved from?
> Eternity in Hell? Ourselves? The only

The heresy of separateness.  Theosophy saves!

> theosophy).  Personally, I am still undecided, and have yet to be
> convinced that HPB is right on this issue (perhaps someone can
> convince me?).

Regardless of who's right, the only once-human-always-human
reincarnationism in Asian tradition is found among the Isma'ili
and the Ahl-i-Haqq as far as I know.  This from a T. Buddhist
who lectured at a London conference and regarded Theosophical
teachings as deriving on this point from non-Buddhist sources.

> Round.  It is very hard for me to believe that this is Buddhism,
> when no real Buddhists have spoken or written of it.  Here again
> is a good example of the power of her model, which seems to be
> the primary framework or structure upon which most of theosophy
> hangs (or falls).

It is still conceivable that she could have obtained some kind of
texts that had been preserved in Tibet but weren't really T.
Buddhist, no? The idea of a sevenfold evolutionary path for the
adept, the human race, the planet, etc.  is clearly Isma'ili.
But there is evidence of some intermixture of Vajrayana and
Isma'ili teachings in Central Asia according to Pio
Filippani-Ronconi.  Which means individual works in Tibetan or
Sanskrit might have played around with such a septenary scheme
without ever being taken as canonical.

This is the most plausible explanation I can come up with to
explain the conflicting evidence you mention.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application