The computer is invaded, Internet intercepted, communication impossible.
“And how, Bhikkhus, is a Bhikkhu one who lights a fire?
In this matter, Bhikkhus, a Bhikkhu shows in detail to others the Dhamma which he has himself heard and learned by heart. Thus he is one who lights a fire.”
In the chapter entitled Buddha, in his book Esoteric Buddhism, A.P.Sinnett makes more misrepresentations, in many and diverse instances, until he reaches the core of them all, that which is being presently refuted:
“Buddha reincarnated himself, after his existence as Gautama Buddha, in the person of the great teacher … — namely, Sankaracharya. The latter part of this name, it may be explained—acharya—merely means teacher.” “… Sankaracharya simply was Buddha in all respects, in a new body.”
This is not the truth, this is not the fact, this is not the case of Our Lord Gautama Buddha.
FACTS ARE PROOFS
Evil Shankaracharya was evil. As Shankaracharya was evil, he could only be an incarnation of Evil.
Why was Shankaracharya evil?
Evil Shankaracharya was an inflicter of suffering. Inflicter of suffering was evil Shankaracharya.
Evil Shankaracharya was master of hate. Master of hate was evil Shankaracharya.
Evil Shankaracharya was teacher of hate. Teacher of hate was evil Shankaracharya.
Evil Shankaracharya consecrated hate as religion in India.
Evil Shankaracharya founded organizations of hate in India.
Evil Shankaracharya named Sringeri Matham the organizations of hate that evil Shankaracharya founded in India, and that still exist till the present days.
Evil Shankaracharya ordained his priests of hate in his Sringeri Matham. In his Sringeri Matham, evil Shankaracharya ordained his priests of hate, in the religion of hate that he founded.
Who were – and still are – these priests of hate?
They are the sacrificers, killers by way of rituals, rites and ceremonies performed in their Sringeri-Matham, religious slaughter-houses, where they make human sacrifices till the present days.
Hate is evil, and sooner or later, it always end in the genocide of millions.
Evil Shankaracharya genocided millions of human beings in India, by way of the most horrible religious persecution ever done in the world.
Evil Shankaracharya perversity was so great that he left written instructions to his evil priests, teaching them how a Bhikshuni should be killed. (*)
The fact is that evil Shankaracharya is the one who needs to incarnate, and so he does, as proclaimed by his own priests of hate, till the present days: their teacher and master, evil Shankaracharya continuously incarnates in his Jagad-Gurus.(**)
(*) – These instructions I found reproduced in a foot-note of a book published and written in India by an Indian Brahman swami. At the time, after a long and tiresome research, I made a list of eighteen different Brahmans, contemporaneous authors, engaged in the disruption of the religion of Buddha in India.
(**) – Warning: refuse to look at their images. Hate is immortal.
To be continued.
Having fully surrendered to Tathagata, may the blessings of Tathagata protect me. By way of Dharana having concentrated my will in the will of the Tathagata, doing as the Tathagata said: to strive diligently for my safety first; by way of arhatship attain Nirvana; strive for the safety of His Dharma Vinaya, and Sangha, in order that all sentient beings in this Earth of sorrow and suffering, whether from the present or from the future, willing to find the Tathagata Kingdom of Righteousness, may also one day have the blessing to see, as to hear, the perfection of the Tathagata lovely wisdom, attain arhatship, then Nirvana. Today, as always, trough this surrender to the Tathagata, may the Ariyans thoughts fill this mind of mine, bring to life the Ariyans sounds in my voice, and may the Ariyans silence in me abide till I attain the incomparable salvation that is Nirvana.
Here begins a gradual refutation of a misrepresentation against Tathagata
I – Analysis of the text of that misrepresentation presented in the previous post
a) – It first appeared by way of words written by A.P.Sinnett, in his book Esoteric Buddhism, under explanations that the subject had been told to him by his Indian guru, an anonymous brahman of the Punjab who later moved to Kashmir with his family;
b) – A.P.Sinnett was an English journalist, then editor-in-chief of the most important British newspaper of India, The Pioneer. In India, he became a member of the Theosophical Society, previously founded by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and the American colonel, Henry Steel Olcott, in the city of New York, 1875;
c) – that brahman of Punjab, the anonymous Indian guru, sometime in his youth, studied in Oxford, England. He used a pen-name in his letters to Sinnett. What his real name was, does not appear in any of the documents signed by him, and later published as Mahatmas Letters to A.P.Sinnett, London, 1923;
d) – the analysis of the writing presented in the misrepresentation, shows the same writing discipline [not to confound with literary style] employed for centuries in the school of brahmans-acharyas, which was founded under the Sringeri-Mathams, of India;
e) – a basic text was written by anonymous brahman acharya;
f) – that written text was handled to H.P.Blavatsky, to which she added hers, apparently mixed with another brahman commentaries, probably the guru of Sinnet;
Then, H.P.Blavatsky, in full knowledge of her falsity, in reckless disregard to all principles of morality, created one of the most filthy misrepresentations ever made in the world.
To be continued
NOW, THE POINT HERE IS THIS: FIRST, TO PROVE THAT THE BUDDHA WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THAT THE BUDDHA WAS SAYING THE MOST ABSOLUTE TRUTH ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A LEGION OF BEINGS ENTIRELY DEVOTED TO THE END OF ALL: MARAS, AND THEIR MARAS WORLDS.
IN THE PALI CANON, ARE FOUND SEVERAL PASSAGES IN WHICH THE BUDDHA MENTIONS DIFFERENT TYPES OF BEINGS, SUCH AS BRAHMANS AND BRAHMINS RECLUSES, DEVAS, YAKSHAS, RAKSHASAS, GODS, AND MARAS WITH THEIR LOKAS, OR WORLDS OF MARAS.
IN THE PALI CANON ARE FOUND SEVERAL PASSAGES IN WHICH THE BUDDHA CLEARLY AFFIRMS THAT MARAS ARE THE END OF ALL, AND TELLS THEM TO GO AWAY, BACK TO THEIR LOKAS WHERE THERE IS NO HOPE OF SALVATION AS THEY ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO IMPEDE ARHATSHIP, OR BUDDHAHOOD.
IN THE PALI CANON IS FOUND AT LEAST ONE PASSAGE IN WHICH THE BUDDHA MENTIONS THAT MARAS INVOLVE CHILDREN PLAYINGS, AS IF, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, MARAS COULD REPRODUCE THEMSELVES, AND HAVE CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN.
IN THE PALI CANON IS FOUND AT LEAST ONE PASSAGE IN WHICH THE BUDDHA MENTIONS THAT MARAS FEED ON THEIR MOST HELPLESS KINS.
FACING MARAS THIS IS WHAT I DECLARE: YES, THE BUDDHA SAYS THE TRUTH, THAT IS, MARAS FEED ON THEIR OWN HELPLESS KINS, ALTHOUGH NOT IN ALL.(*)
FACING MARAS THIS IS WHAT I DECLARE: IF MY TESTIMONY IS IN ANY WAY VALID, I TESTIFY THAT ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED PASSAGES FOUND IN THE PALI CANON PROVE, BEYOND ANY DOUBT, THAT THE PALI CANON FAITHFULLY PRESERVES, TILL THE PRESENT DAYS, ORIGINAL SAYINGS OF OUR LORD GAUTAMA BUDDHA.
IF MY TESTIMONY IS IN ANY WAY VALID, IT IS TO TESTIFY THAT MY LORD GAUTAMA BUDDHA UTTERED THE MOST ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN ALL THAT HE SAYS REFUSING MARAS.
FACING MARAS, THIS IS WHAT I DECLARE: EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE BUDDHA PRECEPTS MUST BE OBEYED BECAUSE THE PRECEPTS OF THE BUDDHA ARE RELEASE FROM MARAS.
FACING MARAS, THIS IS WHAT I DECLARE: EACH AND EVERY TEACHING OF THE BUDDHA IS RELEASE FROM MARAS.
PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIS, MARAS IN THE XIXth CENTURY DID ONE OF THEIR MOST EVIL ATTACKS AGAINST THE BUDDHA, THE BUDDHA DHARMA VINAYA, THE BUDDHA SANGHA:
THE TEXT BELOW HAS BEEN UNINTERRUPTEDLY PUBLISHED SINCE THE XIXth CENTURY, FIRST BY THE BRITISH JOURNALIST A.P.SINNETT, IN HIS BOOK ‘ESOTERIC BUDDHISM’. THEN, BY WAY OF PAPERS IN THE ESOTERIC SCHOOL OF THEOSOPHY, OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY FOUNDED BY H.P.BLAVATSKY. THEN, BY WAY OF ANOTHER BOOK, PUBLISHED BY THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, IN 1897 , IN 1932, TILL 1975 AND NAMED SECRET DOCTRINE BY H.P.BLAVATSKY, THEN IN HER ‘COLLECTED WRITINGS’ TILL NOW.
THEREFORE, THE BELOW ARTICLE WILL BE REFUTED HERE, WORD BY WORD, because it misrepresents Tathagata; because the case that it presents is not the case of Our Lord Gautama Buddha, The Tathagata, that Holy One who before attaining Buddhahood, was known as Maharaj Siddharta Gautama, son of Maharaj Suddhodhana, and his noble wife, Queen Mayadevi, from the Gautama clan, of the Shakya Tribe: Our Lord Gautama Buddha, The Tathagata.IN THE ARTICLE BELOW THE AUTHOR H.P.BLAVATSKY MISREPRESENTS TATHAGATA
TITLE: “THE MYSTERY OF BUDDHA “Now the mystery of Buddha lies in this: Gautama, an incarnation of pure Wisdom, had yet to learn in His human body and to be initiated into the world’s secrets like any other mortal, until the day when He emerged from His secret recess in the Himâlayas and preached for the first time in the grove of Benares. The same with Jesus: from the age of twelve to thirty years, when He is found preaching the sermon on the Mount, nothing is positively said or known of Him. Gautama had sworn inviolable secrecy as to the Esoteric Doctrines imparted to Him. In His immense pity for the ignorance—and as its consequence the sufferings—of mankind, desirous though He was to keep inviolate His sacred vows, He failed to keep within the prescribed limits. While constructing His Exoteric Philosophy (the “Eye-Doctrine”) on the foundations of eternal Truth, He failed to conceal certain dogmas, and trespassing beyond the lawful lines, caused those dogmas to be misunderstood. In His anxiety to make away with the false Gods, He revealed in the “Seven Paths to Nirvâna” some of the mysteries of the Seven Lights of the Arupa (formless) World. A little of the truth is often worse than no truth at all. Truth and fiction are like oil and water: they will never mix. His new doctrine, which represented the outward dead body of the Esoteric Teaching without its vivifying Soul, had disastrous effects: it was never correctly understood, and the doctrine itself was rejected by the Southern Buddhists. Immense philanthrophy, a boundless love and charity for all creatures, were at the bottom of His unintentional mistake; but Karma little heeds intentions, whether good or bad, if they remain fruitless. If the “Good Law,” as preached, resulted in the most sublime code of ethics and the unparalleled philosophy of things external in the visible Kosmos, it biassed and misguided immature minds into believing there was nothing more under the outward mantle of the system, and its dead-letter only was accepted. Moreover, the new teaching unsettled many great minds which had previously followed the orthodox Brâhmanical lead. Page 389 Thus, fifty odd years after his death “the great Teacher”* having refused full Dharmakâya and Nirvâna, was pleased, for purposes of Karma and philanthropy, to be reborn. For Him death had been no death, but as expressed in the “Elixir of Life,”† He changed: A sudden plunge into darkness to a transition into a brighter light.” The shock of death was broken, and like many other Adepts, He threw off the mortal coil and left it to be burnt, and its ashes to serve as relics, and began interplanetary life, clothed in His subtle body. He was reborn as Samkara, the greatest Vedântic teacher of India, whose philosophy – based as it is entirely on the fundamental axioms of the eternal Revelation, the Sruti, or the primitive Wisdom-Religion, as Buddha from a different point of view had before based His – finds itself in the middle ground between the too exuberantly veiled metaphysics of the orthodox Brâhmans and those of Gautama, which, stripped in their exoteric garb of every soul-vivifying hope, transcendental aspiration and symbol, appear in their cold wisdom like crystalline icicles, the skeletons of the primeval truths of Esoteric Philosophy. Was Samkarâchârya Gautama the Buddha, then, under a new personal form? It may perhaps only puzzle the reader the more if he be told that there was the “astral” Gautama inside the outward Samkara, whose higher principle, or Âtman, was, nevertheless, his own divine prototype—the “Son of Light,” indeed—the heavenly, mind-born son of Aditi. This fact is again based on that mysterious transference of the divine ex-personality merged in the impersonal Individuality — now in its full trinitarian form of the Monad as Atma-Buddhi-Manas—to a new body, whether visible or subjective. In the first case it is a Mânushya-Buddha; in the second it is a Nirmânakâya. The Buddha is in Nirvâna, it is said, though this once mortal vehicle—the subtle body—of Gautama is still
* When we say the “great Teacher,” we do not mean His Buddhic Ego, but that principle in Him which was the vehicle of His personal or terrestrial Ego.
† Five Years of Theosophy, p. 4.
–––––––––– Page 390 present among the Initiates; nor will it leave the realm of conscious Being so long as suffering mankind needs its divine help—not to the end of this Root-Race, at any rate. From time to time He, the “astral” Gautama, associates Himself, in some most mysterious—to us quite incomprehensible—manner, with Avatâras and great saints, and works through them. And several such are named. Thus it is averred that Gautama Buddha was reincarnated in Samkarâchârya—that, as is said in Esoteric Buddhism: Samkarâchârya simply was Buddha in all respects in a new body.* While the expression in its mystic sense is true, the way of putting it may be misleading until explained. Samkara was a Buddha, most assuredly, but he never was a reincarnation of the Buddha, though Gautama’s “Astral” Ego—or rather his Bodhisattva—may have been associated in some mysterious way with Samkarâchârya. Yes, it was perhaps the Ego, Gautama, under a new and better adapted casket—that of a Brâhman of Southern India. But the Âtman, the Higher Self that overshadowed both, was distinct from the Higher Self of the translated Buddha, which was now in Its own sphere in Kosmos. Samkara was an Avatâra in the full sense of the term. According to Sâyanâchârya, the great commentator on the Vedas, he is to be held as an Avatâra, or direct incarnation of Siva—the Logos, the Seventh Principle in Nature—Himself. In the Secret Doctrine Srî Samkarâchârya is regarded as the abode—for the thirty-two years of his mortal life—of a Flame, the highest of the manifested Spiritual Beings, one of the Primordial Seven Rays. And now what is meant by a “Bodhisattva”? Buddhists of the Mahâyâna mystic system teach that each BUDDHA manifests Himself (hypostatically or otherwise) simultaneously in three worlds of Being, namely, in the world of Kâma (concupiscence or desire—the sensuous universe or our earth) in the shape of a man; in the world of Rupa (form, yet supersensuous) as a Bodhisattva; and in the highest Spiritual World
* Op. cit., p. 175, Fifth Edition, 1885.
–––––––––– Page 391 (that of purely incorporeal existences) as a Dhyâni-Buddha. The latter prevails eternally in space and time, i.e., from one Mahâ-Kalpa to the other—the synthetic culmination of the three being Âdi-Buddha,* the Wisdom-Principle, which is Absolute, and therefore out of space and time. Their interrelation is the following: The Dhyâni-Buddha, when the world needs a human Buddha, “creates” through the power of Dhyâna (meditation, omnipotent devotion), a mind-born son—a Bodhisattva—whose mission it is after the physical death of his human, or Mânushya-Buddha, to continue his work on earth till the appearance of the subsequent Buddha. The Esoteric meaning of this teaching is clear. In the case of a simple mortal, the principles in him are only the more or less bright reflections of the seven cosmic, and the seven celestial Principles, the Hierarchy of supersensual Beings. In the case of a Buddha, they are almost the principles in esse themselves. The Bodhisattva replaces in him the Kârana Sarîra, the Ego principle, and the rest correspondingly; and it is in this way that Esoteric Philosophy explains the meaning of the sentence that “by virtue of Dhyâna [or abstract meditation] the Dhyâni-Buddha [the Buddha’s Spirit or Monad] creates a Bodhisattva,” or the astrally clothed Ego within the Mânushya-Buddha. Thus, while the Buddha merges back into Nirvâna whence it proceeded, the Bodhisattva remains behind to continue the Buddha’s work upon earth. It is then this Bodhisattva that may have afforded the lower principles in the apparitional body of Samkarâchârya, the Avatâra. Now to say that Buddha, after having reached Nirvâna, returned thence to reincarnate in a new body, would be uttering a heresy from the Brâhmanical, as well as from the Buddhistic standpoint. Even in the Mahâyâna exoteric School, in the
* It would be useless to raise objections from exoteric works to statements in this, which aims to expound, however superficially, the Esoteric Teachings alone. It is because they are misled by the exoteric doctrine that Bishop Bigandet and others aver that the notion of a supreme eternal Âdi-Buddha is to be found only in writings of comparatively recent date. What is given here is taken from the secret portions of Dus-Kyi Khorlo (Kâla-Chakra, in Sanskrit, or the “Wheel of Time,” or duration).
–––––––––– Page 392 teaching as to the three “Buddhic” bodies,* it is said of the Dharmakâya—the ideal formless Being—that once it is taken, the Buddha in it abandons the world of sensuous perceptions for ever, and has not, nor can he have, any more connection with it. To say, as the Esoteric or Mystic School teaches, that though Buddha is in Nirvâna he has left behind him the Nirmânakâya (the Bodhisattva) to work after him, is quite orthodox and in accordance with both the Esoteric Mahâyâna and the Prasanga Mâdhyamika Schools, the latter an anti-esoteric and most rationalistic system. For in the Kâla-Chakra Commentary it is shown that there is: (1) Âdi-Buddha, eternal and conditionless; then (2) come Sambhogakâya-Buddhas, or Dhyâni-Buddhas, existing from (aeônic) eternity and never disappearing—the Causal Buddhas so to say; and (3) the Mânushya-Bodhisattvas. The relation between them is determined by the definition given. Âdi-Buddha is Vajradhara, and the Dhyâni-Buddhas are Vajrasattva; yet though these two are different Beings on their respective planes, they are identical in fact, one acting through the other, as a Dhyâni through a human Buddha. One is “Endless Intelligence”; the other only “Supreme Intelligence.” It is said of Phra Bodhisattva—who was subsequently on earth Buddha Gautama: Having fulfilled all the conditions for the immediate attainment of perfect Buddhaship, the Holy One preferred, from unlimited charity towards living beings, once more to reincarnate for the benefit of man. The Nirvâna of the Buddhists is only the threshold of Pari-nirvâna, according to the Esoteric Teaching: while with the Brâhmans, it is the summum bonum, that final state from which there is no more return—not till the next Mahâ-Kalpa, at all events. And even this last view will be opposed by some too
* The three bodies are (1) the Nirmânakâya (Tul-pa’i-Ku in Tibetan), in which the Bodhisattva after entering by the six Pâramitâs [generosity, virtue, patience, vigor, meditation & wisdom] the Path to Nirvâna, appears to men in order to teach them; (2) Sambhogakâya (Dzog-pa’i-Ku), the body of bliss impervious to all physical sensations, received by one who has fulfilled the three conditions of moral perfection; and (3) Dharmakâya (in Tibetan, Cho-Ku), the Nirvânic body. [Cf. Voice of the Silence, pp. 95-97; and Hui Neng’s Platform Sutra, ch. 6.]
–––––––––– Page 393 orthodox and dogmatic philosophers who will not accept the Esoteric Doctrine. With them Nirvâna is absolute nothingness, in which there is nothing and no one; only an unconditioned All. To understand the full characteristics of that Abstract Principle one must sense it intuitionally and comprehend fully the “one permanent condition in the Universe,” which the Hindûs define so truly as . . . the state of perfect unconsciousness, bare Chidâkâsa (field of consciousness) in fact, however paradoxical it may seem to the profane reader.* Samkarâchârya was reputed to be an Avatâra, an assertion the writer implicitly believes in, but which other people are, of course, at liberty to reject. And as such he took the body of a southern Indian, newly-born Brâhman baby; that body, for reasons as important as they are mysterious to us, is said to have been animated by Gautama’s astral personal remains. This divine Non-Ego chose as its own Upâdhi (physical basis), the ethereal, human Ego of a great Sage in this world of forms, as the fittest vehicle for Spirit to descend into. Said Samkarâchârya: Parabrahman is Kartâ [Purusha], as there is no other Adhishtâthâ,† and Parabrahman is Prakriti, there being no other substance.‡ Now what is true of the Macrocosmical is also true of the Microcosmical plane. It is therefore nearer the truth to say-when once we accept such a possibility—that the “astral” Gautama, or the Nirmânakâya, was the Upâdhi of Samkarâchârya’s spirit, rather than that the latter was a reincarnation of the former.
* Five Years of Theosophy, 1885 ed., “Personal and Impersonal God,” p. 202, by T. Subba Row.
† Adhish˜âthâ, the active or working agent in Prakriti (or matter).
‡ Vedânta-Sutras, Ad. I, Pâda iv, Sloka 23. Commentary. The passage is given as follows in Thibaut’s translation (Sacred Books of the East, xxxiv), p. 286: “The Self is thus the operative cause, because there is no other ruling principle, and the material cause because there is no other substance from which the world could originate.”
–––––––––– Page 394 When a Samkarâchârya has to be born, naturally every one of the principles in the manifested mortal man must be the purest and finest that exist on earth. Consequently those principles that were once attached to Gautama, who was the direct great predecessor of Samkara, were naturally attracted to him, the economy of Nature forbidding the re-evolution of similar principles from the crude state. But it must be remembered that the higher ethereal principles are not, like the lower, more material ones, visible sometimes to man (as astral bodies), and they have to be regarded in the light of separate or independent Powers or Gods, rather than as material objects. Hence the right way of representing the truth would be to say that the various principles, the Bodhisattva, of Gautama Buddha, which did not go to Nirvâna, reunited to form the middle principles of Samkarâchârya, the earthly Entity.* It is absolutely necessary to study the doctrine of the Buddhas esoterically, and understand the subtle differences between the various planes of existence, to be able to comprehend correctly the above. Put more clearly, Gautama, the human Buddha, who had, exoterically, Amitâbha for his Bodhisattva and Avalokiteúvara for his Dhyâni-Buddha—the triad emanating directly from Âdi-Buddha—assimilated these by his “Dhyana” (meditation) and thus became a Buddha (“enlightened”). In another manner this is the case with all men; every one of us has his Bodhisattva—the middle principle,
* In Five Years of Theosophy (article: “Śâkya Muni’s Place in History,” p. 372, note) it is stated that one day when our Lord sat in the Sattapanni Cave (Saptaparna) he compared man to a Saptaparna (seven leaved) plant. “Mendicants,” he said, “there are seven Buddhas in every Buddha, and there are six Bhikshus and but one Buddha in each mendicant. What are the seven? The seven branches of complete knowledge. What are the six? The six organs of sense. What are the five? The five elements of illusive being. And the ONE which is also ten? He is a true Buddha who developes in him the ten forms of holiness and subjects them all to the one.” Which means that every principle in the Buddha was the highest that could be evolved on this earth; whereas in the case of other men who attain to Nirvâna this is not necessarily the case. Even as a mere human (Mânushya) Buddha, Gautama was a pattern for all men. But his Arhats were not necessarily so. [Cf. Blavatsky Collected Writings, Vol. V, p. 247.]
–––––––––– Page 395 if we hold for a moment to the trinitarian division of the septenary group—and his Dhyâni-Buddha, or Chohan, the “Father of the Son.” Our connecting link with the higher Hierarchy of Celestial Beings lies here in a nutshell, only we are too sinful to assimilate them. Six centuries after the translation of the human Buddha (Gautama), another Reformer, as noble and as loving, though less favored by opportunity, arose in another part of the world, among another and a less spiritual race. There is a great similarity between the subsequent opinions of the world about the two Saviors, the Eastern and the Western. While millions became converted to the doctrines of the two Masters, the enemies of both—sectarian opponents, the most dangerous of all—tore both to shreds by insinuating maliciously-distorted statements based on Occult truths, and therefore doubly dangerous. While of Buddha it is said by the Brâhmans that He was truly an Avatâra of Vishnu, but that He had come to tempt the Brâhmans from their faith, and was therefore the evil aspect of the God; of Jesus the Bardesanian Gnostics and others asserted that He was Nebu, the false Messiah, the destroyer of the old orthodox religion. “He is the founder of a new sect of Nazars,” said other sectarians. In Hebrew the word “Naba” means “to speak by inspiration” (!,1, and &,1 is Nebo, the God of wisdom). But Nebo is also Mercury, who is Budha in the Hindu monogram of planets. And this is shown by the fact that the Talmudists hold that Jesus was inspired by the Genius (or Regent) of Mercury confounded by Sir William Jones with Gautama Buddha. There are many other strange points of similarity between Gautama and Jesus, which cannot be noticed here.* If both the Initiates, aware of the danger of furnishing the uncultured masses with the powers acquired by ultimate knowledge, left the innermost corner of the sanctuary in profound darkness, who, acquainted with human nature, can blame either of them for this? Yet although Gautama, actuated by prudence, left the Esoteric and most dangerous portions of the Secret Knowledge untold, and lived to the ripe old age of eighty –
–––––––––––––––––––– Page 396 the Esoteric Doctrine says one hundred – years, dying with the certainty of having taught its essential truths, and of having sown the seeds for the conversion of one-third of the world, He yet perhaps revealed more than was strictly good for posterity. But Jesus, who had promised His disciples the knowledge which confers upon man the power of producing “miracles” far greater than He had ever produced Himself, died, leaving but a few faithful disciples—men only half-way to knowledge. They had therefore to struggle with a world to which they could impart only what they but half-knew themselves, and—no more. In later ages the exoteric followers of both mangled the truths given out, often out of recognition. With regard to the adherents of the Western Master, the proof of this lies in the very fact that none of them can now produce the promised “miracles.” They have to choose: either it is they who have blundered, or it is their Master who must stand arraigned for an empty promise, an uncalled-for boast.* Why such a difference in the destiny of the two? For the Occultist this enigma of the unequal favor of Karma or Providence is unriddled by the Secret Doctrine. It is “not lawful” to speak of such things publicly, as St. Paul tells us. One more explanation only may be given in reference to this subject. It was said a few pages back that an Adept who thus sacrifices himself to live, giving up full Nirvâna, though he can never lose the knowledge acquired by him in previous existences, yet can never rise higher in such borrowed
* “Before one becomes a Buddha he must be a Bodhisattva; before evolving into a Bodhisattva he must be a Dhyâni-Buddha. . . . A Bodhisattva is the way and Path to his Father, and thence to the One Supreme Essence” (Descent of Buddhas, p. 17, from Âryâsanga). “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (St. John, xiv, 6). The “way” is not the goal. Nowhere throughout the New Testament is Jesus found calling himself God, or anything higher than “a son of God,” the son of a “Father” common to all, synthetically. Paul never said (1 Tim. iii, 16), “God was manifest in the flesh,” but “He who was manifested in the flesh” (Revised Edition). While the common herd among the Buddhists—the Burmese especially—regard Jesus as an incarnation of Devadatta, a relative who opposed the teachings of Buddha, the students of Esoteric Philosophy see in the Nazarene Sage a Bodhisattva with the spirit of Buddha Himself in Him.
–––––––––– Page 397 bodies. Why? Because he becomes simply the vehicle of a “Son of Light” from a still higher sphere, Who being Arupa, has no personal astral body of His own fit for this world. Such “Sons of Light,” or Dhyâni-Buddhas, are the Dharmakâyas of preceding Manvantaras, who have closed their cycles of incarnations in the ordinary sense and who, being thus Karmaless, have long ago dropped their individual Rupas, and have become identified with the first Principle. Hence the necessity of a sacrificial Nirmânakâya, ready to suffer for the misdeeds or mistakes of the new body in its earth-pilgrimage, without any future reward on the plane of progression and rebirth, since there are no rebirths for him in the ordinary sense. The Higher Self, or Divine Monad, is not in such a case attached to the lower Ego; its connection is only temporary, and in most cases it acts through decrees of Karma. This is a real, genuine sacrifice, the explanation of which pertains to the highest Initiation of Jñâna (Occult Knowledge). It is closely linked, by a direct evolution of Spirit and involution of Matter, with the primeval and great Sacrifice at the foundation of the manifested Worlds, the gradual smothering and death of the spiritual in the material. The seed “is not quickened, except it die.”* Hence in the Purusha Sukta of the Rig-Veda,† the mother fount and source of all subsequent religions, it is stated allegorically that “the thousand-headed Purusha” was slaughtered at the foundation of the World, that from his remains the Universe might arise. This is nothing more nor less than the foundation—the seed, truly—of the later many-formed symbol in various religions, including Christianity, of the sacrificial lamb. For it is a play upon the words. “Aja” (Purusha), “the unborn,” or eternal Spirit, means also “lamb,” in Sanskrit. Spirit disappears—dies, metaphorically—the more it gets involved in matter, and hence the sacrifice of the “unborn,” or the “lamb.” Why the BUDDHA chose to make this sacrifice will be plain only to those who, to the minute knowledge of His earthly
† Op. cit., Mandala X, hymn 90, 1-5.
–––––––––– Page 398 life, add that of a thorough comprehension of the laws of Karma. Such occurrences, however, belong to the most exceptional cases. As tradition goes, the Brâhmans had committed a heavy sin by persecuting Gautama BUDDHA and His teachings instead of blending and reconciling them with the tenets of pure Vaidic Brâhmanism, as was done later by Samkarâchârya. Gautama had never gone against the Vedas, only against the exoteric growth of preconceived interpretations. The Sruti—divine oral revelation, the outcome of which was the Veda—is eternal. It reached the ear of Gautama Siddhârtha as it had those of the Rishis who had written it down. He accepted the revelation, while rejecting the later overgrowth of Brâhmanical thought and fancy, and built His doctrines on one and the same basis of imperishable truth. As in the case of His Western successor, Gautama, the “Merciful,” the “Pure,” and the “Just,” was the first found in the Eastern Hierarchy of historical Adepts, if not in the world-annals of divine mortals, who was moved by that generous feeling which locks the whole of mankind within one embrace, with no petty differences of race, birth, or caste. It was He who first enunciated that grand and noble principle, and He again who first put it into practice. For the sake of the poor and the reviled, the outcast and the hapless, invited by Him to the king’s festival table, He had excluded those who had hitherto sat alone in haughty seclusion and selfishness, believing that they would be defiled by the very shadow of the disinherited ones of the land—and these non-spiritual Brâhmans turned against Him for that preference. Since then such as these have never forgiven the prince-beggar, the son of a king, who, forgetting His rank and station, had flung widely open the doors of the forbidden sanctuary to the pariah and the man of low estate, thus giving precedence to personal merit over hereditary rank or fortune. The sin was theirs—the cause nevertheless Himself: hence the “Merciful and the Blessed One” could not go out entirely from this world of illusion and created causes without atoning for the sin of all—therefore of these Brahmans also. If “man afflicted by man” found safe refuge with the Tathâgata, “man afflicting man” had also his share in His self-sacrificing, all-embracing and forgiving love. It is stated that He desired to atone for the sin of His enemies. Then only was Page 399 he willing to become a full Dharmakâya, a Jîvanmukta “without remains. “The close of Samkarâchârya’s life brings us face to face with a fresh mystery. Samkarâchârya retires to a cave in the Himâlayas, permitting none of his disciples to follow him, and disappears therein forever from the sight of the profane. Is he dead? Tradition and popular belief answer in the negative, and some of the local Gurus, if they do not emphatically corroborate, do not deny the rumor. The truth with its mysterious details as given in the Secret Doctrine is known but to them; it can be given out fully only to the direct followers of the great Dravidian Guru, and it is for them alone to reveal of it as much as they think fit. Still it is maintained that this Adept of Adepts lives to this day in his spiritual entity as a mysterious, unseen, yet overpowering presence among the Brotherhood of Sambhala, beyond, far beyond, the snowy-capped Himâlayas.* (Blavatsky Secret Doctrine, Theosophical Publishing House, 1897; 1932; Collected Writings, Vol.14, pages 388 et sequens).
(*) SIMILAR TO WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO IN THE WORLD, I.E. BY WAY OF ABORTION WHEN MILLIONS KILL THEIR OWN CHILDREN IN ORDER TO FEED LABORATORIES, COSMETICS INDUSTRIES, OR OTHER WORDLY PURPOSES.
500 million Buddhists, and no more than 10 clicks a day to read the Buddhist texts that the scholar A.Charles Muller took from their religion, and then pasted in his property, in Internet.
And, unless 500 million Buddhists work for free to scholar A. Charles Muller religious intolerance in Internet, they shall never be allowed to freedom of religion within his web pages: to read as many Buddhist texts per day, as they might want, or need, to read:
This Buddha Temple has been continuously profaned, by the Theosophical Society in Adyar. Its previous bell, a remarkable work of art, was donated by Japan, and it was still there in 1996, although it had already been vandalized. Now, as to this unbelievable story that youths cut the iron grille using a hack-saw, this is an absolute impossibility, due to the fact that a hack-saw cutting an iron grille makes a lot of noise, and would be heard, as there are members nearby working by daytime, and several residences nearby too, plus the security guards who work there, day and night. There is religious intolerance presided by Mad. Radha Burnier in the Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai [Madras].
Twelve (not ten) Buddhist temples burned (some of them together with their monasteries), 2,100 Buddhist homes burned to ashes
STATE TERRORISM AGAINST BUDDHISTS IN CHINA (Tibet) CAUSED STATE TERRORISM AGAINST BUDDHISTS IN NEPAL, THEN CAUSED STATE TERRORISM AGAINST BUDDHISTS IN INDIA, THEN CAUSED STATE TERRORISM AGAINST BUDDHISTS IN MYANMAR, AND AS THE WORLD REWARDS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE TERRORIST STATES, LAST SATURDAY STATE TERRORISM IN BANGLADESH BURNED 10 BUDDHIST TEMPLES, 2,100 BUDDHIST HOMES, AND PROCLAIMED THAT IT WAS AN ORGANIZED ACT OF TERRORISM, IN WHICH 25,000 MUSLIMS TOOK PART, AGAINST THE 1% NATIONAL RELIGIOUS MINORITY GROUP OF BUDDHISTS IN BANGLADESH.
THE NUMBERS ARE PUBLISHED IN AL-JAZEERA WEB PAGE:
AND AL-JAZEERA SAID THAT ALL THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE THE DAY BEFORE A PICTURE OF ONE BURNED QURAN APPEARED IN ONE BUDDHIST BOY WEB PAGE IN FACEBOOK. FACEBOOK EXPELLED THE BOY, THE GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH ARRESTED THE BOY FATHER AND MOTHER.
BUT THE BOY SAYS HE IS INNOCENT, THE CHILD SAYS THAT HIS WEB PAGE WAS INVADED BY HACKERS WHO POSTED BURNED QURAN PICTURE IN HIS WEB PAGE.
AND IN THE WEST, SOME NEWSPAPERS MISINFORM THEIR READERS PUBLISHING THAT: “4O BUDDHIST HOMES WERE BURNED, BY A SMALL GROUP OF PROTESTERS ENRAGED BY THE PICTURE OF ONE BURNED QURAN IN FACEBOOK.”
THE EPIDEMICS OF STATE TERRORISM AGAINST BUDDHISM IN THE WORLD, IS VERY EFFICIENT IN THE WEST, WHERE BUDDHIST TEMPLES ARE EXTINGUISHED BEFORE THEY APPEAR:
IN THE UNITED STATES, A CITY COUNCIL REFUSED ONE BUDDHIST TEMPLE ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUDDHIST TEMPLES ATTRACT TOO MUCH PEOPLE, THUS DISTURBING THE CITY LANDSCAPE.
AND NOW, IN UK, TWO DIFFERENT CITIES COUNCILS REFUSED ONE AND SAME BUDDHIST TEMPLE ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUDDHIST TEMPLES ATTRACT TOO MUCH PEOPLE, THUS DISTURBING THOSE CITIES LANDSCAPES.
(To be continued)
Vegetarianism is not the case in the Buddha Sangha. Buddha did not teach vegetarianism. Buddha was not vegetarian.
It was the vegetarian bhikkhu Devadatta who preached, imposed, and forced vegetarianism to bhikkhus, by him converted to his vegetarian schism, nearly 2,600 years ago.
Since then, sometimes vegetarian bhikkhus appear preaching vegetarianism, following Devadatta foot-prints of error, and thus, holders of wrong views, wrong aims they hold.
This is now the case of the vegetarian bhikkhus Sujato, and Dhammika, who propagate in essence, respectively:
‘Bhikkhu Sujato is vegetarian, vegetarian is bhikkhu Sujato, not the Buddha. Therefore, non-vegetarians should be vegetarians.’
‘Vegetarian is bhikkhu Dhammika, bhikkhu Dhammika is vegetarian, not the Buddha. Therefore, non-vegetarians should be vegetarians.’
Consequently, in full knowledge of their falsity and in reckless disregard to what the Buddha taught, these two: vegetarian bhikkhu Sujato, and vegetarian bhikkhu Dhammika, misrepresent Tathagata.
The case in the Buddha Sangha is what the Buddha taught.
What the Buddha taught is the case in the Buddha Sangha.
In the Buddha Sangha, the Buddha taught that the intake of substantial food, together with the eating of lawful meat are allowed by Him, in the Buddha Sangha.
Therefore, the case in the Buddha Sangha is the eating of lawful meat, together with the intake of substantial food:
THE BUDDHA SUTRA TO JIVAKA
Lawful and Unlawful Meats
“Thus have I heard.
Once when the Lord was staying at Rajagaha in the mango-grove of Jivaka Komarabhacca, Jivaka came to the Lord and, after salutations, took his seat at one side, saying:
I hear it is being said, sir, that people slay animals expressly for you, the recluse Gautama, who wittingly eats meat expressly meant for him and deliberately provided for him. Now, in so saying, are people accurately quoting the Lord’s own words and not misrepresenting him? Are they stating what is congruent with the Doctrine? And is there no plausible version of your utterance which provokes criticism?
“Those who talk like that are not accurately quoting words of mine, Jivaka, but are wrongfully misrepresenting me in defiance of fact.
I forbid the eating of meat in three cases: if there is the evidence either of your eyes, or of your ears, or if there are grounds of suspicion.
And in three cases I allow it, if there is no evidence either of your eyes, or of your ears, and if there be no grounds of suspicion.
Take the case, Jivaka, of a Bhikkhu, supported by a village or a township, who dwells with radiant good-will pervading one quarter of the world, a second, a third, and then the fourth quarter, pervading the whole length and breadth of the world, above, below, around, everywhere, with radiant good-will all embracing, vast, boundless, wherein no hate or malice finds a place.
To this Bhikkhu comes a householder or his son with an invitation to tomorrow’s meal.
If he so desires, the Bhikkhu accepts, and next morning, when the night is over, duly robed and bowl in hand, he makes his way to the house, takes the seat set for him, and is served with an excellent meal.
No thought comes to him that he could have wished his host either to desist now, or to desist in future, from furnishing so excellent a meal; he eats his food without greed or blind desire but with a full consciousness of the dangers it involves and with full knowledge that it affords no refuge.
Do you think that at such a time that Bhikkhu’s thoughts are set on hurting himself, or others, or both ?”
“Is not that Bhikkhu then eating food to which no blame attaches?”
“In the truth-finder (Bhikkhu), all passion, all hatred, and all delusion that could breed hurtfulness have all been grubbed up by the roots, like the cleared site where once a palm-tree grew, a thing that once has been and now can be no more. If this was the purport of your remark, Jivaka, I agree.”
Yes, sir; that was what I meant.
“Take the case of a Bhikkhu, supported by a village or a township, who dwells with radiant pity, sympathy poised equanimity, pervading one quarter of the world, a second, a third, and then the fourth quarter, pervading the whole length and breadth of the world, above, below, around, everywhere, with radiant pity, sympathy poised equanimity all embracing, vast, boundless, wherein no hate or malice finds a place. Is not that Bhikkhu then eating food to which no blame attaches?”
“In the truth-finder (Bhikkhu) all passion, all hatred, and all delusion which could breed annoyance or dislikes or aversions have all been grubbed up by the roots, like the cleared site where once a palm-tree grew, a thing that once has been and now can be no more. If this was the purport of your remark, Jivaka, I agree.”
Yes, sir; that was what I meant.
“Who so takes life expressly for the truth-finder (Bhikkhu), or for a disciple of his, is storing up much demerit for himself in five respects. First, in that he orders a particular living creature to be fetched. Secondly, in that this living creature, by being fetched, experiences pain of mind and body. Thirdly, in that he orders it to be killed. Fourthly, in that, in being killed, that living creature experiences pain of mind and body. And fifthly, in that he offends the truth-finder (Bhikkhu), or a disciple of his by offering him what is improper.”
It is wonderful, sir; it is marvellous! Strictly correct is the Bhikkhu’s eating, strictly correct and blameless. Excellent, sir; excellent! Just as a man might set upright again what had been cast down, or reveal what was hidden away, or tell a man who had gone astray which was his way, or bring a lamp into darkness so that those with eyes to see might see the things about them, even so, in many a figure, has the Lord made his Doctrine clear. I come to the Lord as my refuge, and to his Dhamma, and to his Sangha. I ask the Lord to accept me as a follower who has found an abiding refuge from this day onward while life lasts.”(1)
THE BUDDHA TAUGHT SUBSTANTIAL FOOD
First, it is necessary to explain that here, the word food is employed with the same meaning of the Sanskrit terms ‘ahara’, and ‘aharam’, meaning solid food, food that we eat in order to sustain life in our ‘sthula sarira’ – the Sanskrit equivalent to ‘physical body’.
Second, there is need to say that the rare word ‘refutation’ means to ‘overthrow by argument or proof, that which is false and erroneous.’
And therefore, some sayings of the Buddha are now presented, in order to prove that in the Buddha Dharma-Vinaya, the discipline imparted by Him is substantial food in His Sangha.
SOME SAYINGS OF THE BUDDHA ON SUBSTANTIAL FOOD
The Saner Way
“Then, Aggivessana, I thought:
I call to mind how when the Sakyan my father was ploughing I sat in the cool shade of the rose-apple tree, remote from sensuall desires and ill conditions, and entered upon and abode in the First Trance, that is accompanied by thought directed and sustained, which is born of solitude, full of zestful ease.
And I said then:
Is this, I wonder, the Way to the Wisdom?
And on that occasion there came to me the consciousness that follows thought composed:
Yes, this is the Way to the Wisdom.
Then, Aggivessana, I thought:
Why am I afraid of that state of ease, that ease which is apart from sensual desires and ill conditions?
Then, I thought:
No. I am not afraid of that state of ease.
Then I said:
But it is not easy for one to reach that state of ease with a body thus utterly exhausted. Suppose now I take some substantial food, some rice gruel.
And so I did, Aggivessana.
Now at that time I had with me five brethren attending me, who thought: Whatever truth Gautama the recluse shall arrive at, that will he impart to us.
But as soon as I took to eating food substantial, those five brethren were disgusted and went away, saying: Luxurious is Gautama the recluse become! He wavers in his purpose; he has turned back to the life luxurious.
Then I, Aggivessana, after taking food substantial got back my strength; and remote from sensual desires, remote from ill conditions, I entered and abode in the First Trance… the Second Trance… the Third Trance… the Fourth Trance, but in each case the blissful feelings that arose failed to lay hold of and control my mind.
Then with thought steadied, perfectly purified, and made perfectly translucent, free from blemish, purged of taint, made supple and pliable, fit for wielding, established and immovable, I bent down my mind to the recalling of my former existences.
I recalled divers births… evolutions and involutions of aeons… conditions of births… and experiences in such… the rise and fall of beings and their characteristics in the different worlds with the eye divine.
Then I perceived the Four Ariyan Truths… the destruction of the asavas… and I knew this:
Destroyed is rebirth for me. Lived is the holy life. Done is my task. For life in these conditions there is no hereafter.
Thus on that night, in the last watch of the night, the Threefold Knowledge was attained by me: knowledge arose, darkness was overcome, light arose, as it does for him that abides earnest, ardent and of set purpose.”
(1) – ‘Further Dialogues of the Buddha’, translated from the Majjhima Nikaya in Pali, by Lord Chalmers, Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, London, 1926. Pages 264 to 266.
(2) – ‘Some Sayings of the Buddha – According to the Pali Canon’, translated from the Pali by F.L.Woodward, Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, London, 1925.
Faith in the Buddha Aryas Dharma-Vinaya; faith in the Buddha Aryas Sangha.
Faith in Buddha.