Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00463)

Alexis writes,

> There are a lot of things about the Gnostics that I agree with, the
> one thing I disagree with is their Christianity. The other thing I disagree
> with is their unrelenting dualism.


Not all Gnostics were dualists.

The Valentinians -- the most respected school in antiquity -- taught a
monistic Godhead, which only achieved dualism through manifestation.  There
is no good-evil dichotomy.  Plotinus probably wasn't arguing with these
Gnostics, but more likely with the Jewish-centered sects e.g. Sethians (who
claimed an apocryphal decent from Adam's son Seth, the "Revealer").  They
were FIERCELY dualist, in reaction to rigidity among the more zealous Jews as
to their Almighty and his All-goodness.  Sethians taught that the traditional
Jahweh was evil along with the entire universe he created -- but a higher,
transcendent God existed.

Even in this extreme dualism there is a hidden hint as to the gulf between
matter and spirit.  (See Gershom Scholem, *Jewish Mysticism*) Though they may
be two poles on one spectrum, still, "the self of matter and the self of
spirit may never meet."  (*The Voice of the Silence*)


Alexis continues,

The same is true, in a way, with
> Buddhism. With Gautama's basic ideas, I totally agree, with what time and
> disicples have done to those ideas, I do NOT agree. I think Mahayana
> Buddhism is a reincarnation of all those things in the Brahmanic Religion
> that Gautama was rebelling against.


This is mighty tough.  We don't have ANY CLUE what the Buddha actually taught
from his lips, just as we haven't ANY CLUE what Jesus himself spoke (on the
mount, on the plain, or in any other conflicting version of the Beatitudes,
for example).

All we have are what the disciples preserved, first in oral tradition, then
in many SEPARATE streams of written tradition.  No stream agrees completely
with any other.

The first WRITTEN Buddhist documents date from around 100 BCE to 100 CE.
 That leaves, by most estimates, 400 years from Buddha himself to the
earliest text.

How, Alexis, will you decide what was the Buddha's, and what was His
disciple's, works?  Could you list for me some of Gautama's "basic ideas"?

 From all accounts, it seems the Buddha did indeed teach karma: it's in all
the earliest texts as well as in the Mahayana (which, by the way, is not
NECESSARILY a later development, their texts appear in history as early as
the Hinyana ones).


Finally, Alexis writes,

I certtainly don't believe in Karma, as
> either Buddhism or Theosophy teaches it. But then I don't have to, because
> Karma isn't mentioned at all in the three objects, is it?


Even if it were mentioned in the Three Objects, would you feel forced to
believe it?

Who cares what the Objects, or Radha, or the Danes, or anything or anyone
else says?  What's that to you and me?

To me Theosophy isn't about "fanatical" re-statements as to the wonderfulness
of *The Secret Doctrine* or any other allegedly "revealed" text (what idiot
is running around claiming THAT?).  Nor is it predicated upon the divine
perfection of Our Lady, Her Holiness Madame Blavatsky.  Her personality, in
all its complexity, is pretty irrelevant to the philosophy she delivered.

Theosophy is practice, Theosophy is understanding, Theosophy is inner growth
with the intent to benefit all.

There is no need for orthodoxy, or agreement, or even playing "nice."  If
this list wants to be vicious as hell, by all means.

(Curious, though, why so few newcomers seem to be posting.  Hmmm -- wonder
how I would feel if I signed on to this board looking for what Theosophy
teaches, and found only insults and polemic?)