Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00342)

Kim wrote:

Dear Martin,
   could you specify what this authorial reluctance might be (you could be
talking of anyone).

	Kim: see my posting on this in a previous digest. It boils down
to sharing some of one's insights on matters that one has studied thoroughly
and/or has experience in and is related to T/theosophy in any sense.


K> I have made the observation that certain ancient texts are full of terms
we connect with theosophical doctrines and that these terms disappear
completely in translations. An example - in the Mandukya karika 4.92
Gaudapada mentions Adibuddha and the realition of "it" to the seventh
principle, Shankara adds that this seventh principle is svabhavat. In
short, someone aught to translate such material from a theosophical angle.
To me it seems the best chance to lay our hands on some high quality eso
teric material - and this is my angle described unreluctantly!
In friendship,
Kim

	It seems funny to me that you're refering to the one Upanishad
I've got on my book shelf. (although this Upanishad is considered the most
important one in the Muktikopanishad - so, your reference may  not be
incidental).
 I've got a translation by the advaita ashrama that runs like this (4.92):

'All Jivas are, by their very nature, illumined from the very beginning
and they are ever immutable in their nature. He who, having known this,
rests without (sees the needlessness of) seeking further knowledge,
is alone capable of realising the Highest Truth.'

This may be an akward translation of Gaudapada's karika, I've no idea
(I know a little bit of Sanskrit but it would take me ages to translate
this verse)

Shankara's commentary (English translation) contains a reference to
 'eternal light' which might be a translation of svabhavat(?)

In the next karika there's an annotation by swami nikhilananda that:

'The previous Karika stated the condition which alone makes one capable
of attaining to liberation. But this liberation is not something external
or foreign to be achieved or acquired. The Self is, by its very nature,
ever free and illumined. It has never been covered with a veil.
Therefore one who understands the real import of Advaita Vedanta, realises
himself as ever pure, free and illumined and automatically ceases from making
efforts at gaining further knowledge'


This annotation made me smile when I read it. This type of monism may breed
lazy people, I think, although it contains some truth in the sense
that one doesn't have to look 'somewhere out' to find liberation.
That does not mean that karma yoga is unnecessary or meaningless.
Also, this type of monism (at least as it is presented by this swami)
neglects the fact that we *learn through experience*. It's not enough to sit
down and think that one is enlightened already.
What do you think?


-----------

Jerry Schueler wrote:

	Maybe it was me?  I don't like to talk about it, mainly
because my new book (out yesterday) is more magic than
Theosophy.  In fact, it is a blend of Enochian Magic and Tantricism,
two no-no's in theosophical circles, so I naturally am "reluctant"
to talk about it.

	Jerry: I know that these topics are no-no in TSs, but on theos-l
things may be different. Regarding magic, Theosophical teachings
state that our whole life is magic: thinking, speaking, acting..
It is only the motive which is important. G de P gives directions
for using one's thinking faculty in a way that enables the subtle energies
to do their work in one's mind (becoming transparant to these energies
and thus becoming a channel for expression for these energies on the physical
plane). He writes about that in ~Esoteric teachings I~. Pretty much magic
I'd say (and I came across this type of ideas also in Western Hermeticism,
Quabalah and Gnosis).
So, magic is not really (or should not really be) a no in Theosophical
circles. It may be different for magick, but I don't know much about that.
I don't know anything about Enochian Magic as how it relates to the above,
so I can't comment on that. Maybe you can provide a little description
of it?

Tantricism is a different case, except when the original tantrical works
are meant by this, I think. Often Tantricism is associated with sex magic(k)
nowadays, and that is generally considered to be a 'no' in Theosophical
circles. Some think of it as an abuse of the creative power. Well, I don't
like to generalize. Based upon my own experiences I'm inclined to say this:
it might be benificial to some people in some phase of their life
(example: for those who have a blockage in their emotional nature pertaining
 to sex and repress all such feelings) but I would be very careful in
recommending it to anyone. Of course, people choose for themselves what they
want to do, nowadays, so they will find out what works for them and what
doesn't. It's a delicate topic anyway, so I wouldn't expect a big discussion
on that on this list. But, maybe you have something other in mind, I don't
know. What is this tantricism in your books all about?

Martin