Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00401)

In a message dated 95-10-17 19:51:27 EDT, you write:

> Since karma originates in the mind, it follows that this
> world was produced principally by mind ... There is
> no valid reason for saying that it was created by Brahma,
> or by any god. The entire world arose due to karma, and
> karma arises from mind; therefore the actual creator
> of this world is mind"

Now, I profess no knowledge whatsoever of Buddhism and its various schools
and beliefs, but merely try to apply (simple) logic and reason to that which
is put forth and rely heavily on the postulates of HPB's (version of)
Theosophy.

My question would be, Whence Mind? The author of the above statements does
not address this, or you have not included it in your quote. Since Mind or
Universal Mind is an emination or differentiation of the Absolute in
Theosophy, the question must be asked of the author. I would also argue the
point regarding Karma originating in Mind. The manifested universe and all
its principles arose from causes producing their effects according to Law
(Karma). It seems that Karma is the highest aspect of an Absolute Principle
of which Atman is a radiance, about which HPB says both are unknowable, only
perceivable in their effects. Since Karma is action, motion, and motion is
one of the aspects of the Absolute, it appears that the author did not carry
his argument or logic far enough, and I would dismiss the above as
incomplete.

< This emptiness, which is called 'the
non-duality of apprehended and apprehender', is the
profound emptiness that is the door to liberation." >

In this quote, it seems that the problem lies with the author's choice of the
word, "emptiness." Since s/he is arguing for the non-existence of subject
without object and vice versa, rather than emptiness, it appears that there
is unity. The two are aspects of one, they cannot exist without one another,
therefore they are the same. It is this UNITY which is the Absolute, from
which all proceeds in differentiation. Therefore I would argue that the
author's argument is again incomplete based on poor choice of words. Both
cases point to the existence of an Absolute Principle, the radiance of which
we refer to as Atman. Now if "Emptiness" is the word the Buddhists use, then
maybe we need to see if by this word they are really meaning something which
Theosophy offers another word for. . . I propose Unity, the Absolute. HPB,
in the SD, refers to Spirit or the Absolute as a "negative abstraction",
whatever that means. Could the various terms be relating to the same thing?
 I propose yes, since that exhaustive exercise of reconciliation of the
world's system, the SD, shows us that if read in the light of esoteric
philosophy, the various systems can indeed be shown to teach many of the same
things. Perhaps a Buddhist scholar could help explain some of this.