thank you for the reply I m a menber af the Teosophical center in Milan and the teaching of the master is defenetly part of my life ,the teaching is so rich and it helps me to undestand myself end the univers as micro and macro,days ago I started to read a Ramana Maharshi book and I find extraordinary but at the same time I think ...He see God in everything ,we are God ,there is only God end the rest is illusion....so I ask myself and all the infinite extraordinary teaching of the Master is an illusion or the steps to reach that state?....o something else that I dont see yet?
Speaking about the first fundamental proposition (in the proem of the SD), Cmdr. Robert Bowen quotes HPB as saying "The Atom, the Man, the God (she says) are each separately, as well as all collectively, Absolute Being in their last analysis, that is their REAL INDIVIDUALITY. It is this idea which must be held always in the background of the mind to form the basis for every conception that arises from study of the S.D. The moment one lets it go (and it is most easy to do so when engaged in any of the many intricate aspects of the Esoteric Philosophy) the idea of SEPARATION supervenes, and the study loses its value."
It is for this reason I believe the study of Advaita Vedanta is important to students of Theosophy. I believe that working with the ideas expressed by Advaita masters like Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi can help us keep the first fundamental proposition held in the background of our minds.
We have had an Advaita study group going on Sunday nights at the Olcott campus of the TSA since January 07.
From Letter 10 (88 chrono) of the Mahatma Letters:
". . . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics."
Ok my only doubt was wen I approach the books of Nisargadatta and Ramana M.in fact my last trip to India this janaury I was in the S.S. Sai Baba ashram were more than 10 hears ago I discovered the Theosopy teaching and became my only road to undestand me and the inner self and more...the Vedanta ,this extraordinary view is a deep revelation at this moment for me .The meditation as change,the perception of everyday life is now different....but at one point I thought, all the explenation of the T. the different plane,the chakra,permant atom ,devachan and more the we all study for the Advaita Vedanta is just an illusion of the person,the puppet that identify itself whith the body the emotion(the astral body) end the mind and also the reserch of the path end the actor is just an illusion because we are alredy God even the strain that we do to reach somthing is just the ego that is pleasing inself...and this is very close to Krishnamurti 'teaching' also.than yesterday I was at the park whith my dog and I remenber that I read in a blavatky S.D.that in this long evolution at one point the atma will reach the ultimet state and all the plale will be seen as illusion ...I m really sorry my english is very bad to wright this took me long time hahahahh if you whant to replay try to be simple for me!!OM SHANTY....pace!
Read the first fundamental proposition of The Secret Doctrine and start to answer your question.
From another point of view, THEOSOPHY is the Core Source of all philosophies, religions etc
From another read The Collected Writings and search, for example, for quotations of Sankara.
From another Search the writings of T. Subba Row, whom Blavatsky respected too much.
H. P: Blavatsky wrote in The Secret Doctrine, p. 271-272:
"Sri Sankaracharya, the greatest Initiate living in the historical ages, wrote many a Bhâshya on the Upanishads. But his original treatises, as there are reasons to suppose, have not yet fallen into the hands of the Philistines, for they are too jealously preserved in his maths (monasteries, mathams). And there are still weightier reasons to believe that the priceless Bhâshyas (Commentaries) on the esoteric doctrine of the Brahmins, by their greatest expounder, will remain for ages yet a dead letter to most of the Hindus, except the Smârtava Brahmins. This sect, founded by Sankaracharya, (which is still very powerful in Southern India) is now almost the only one to produce students who have preserved sufficient knowledge to comprehend the dead letter of the Bhashyas. The reason of this is that they alone, I am informed, have occasionally real Initiates at their head in their mathams, as for instance, in the "Sringa-giri," in the Western Ghats of Mysore. On the other hand, there is no sect in that desperately exclusive caste of the Brahmins, more exclusive than is the Smârtava; and the reticence of its followers to say what they may know of the Occult sciences and the esoteric doctrine, is only equalled by their pride and learning." http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm
. . .
"WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR FELLOW MEN?" by H. P. Blavatsky, 1889:
"And just the same with Vedanta. It prohibits any attachment to worldly views and interests, or enquiries after cosmology or evolution a fortiori socialism and any other world-improvement. All this Vedanta calls Ajñâna (Buddhism: Avidya), while Jñâna or wisdom—the only aim of a sage (Jñâni)—is but the striving for the realization of the eternal (true reality, Atma) (a).
Answer (a). It depends on what you call Vedanta— whether the Dwaita, or the Viśishtadwaita. That we differ from all these, is no news, and I have spoken of it repeatedly. Yet in the esotericism of the Upanishads, when correctly understood, and our esotericism, there will not be found much difference. Nor have I ever disputed any of the facts about Buddha as now brought forward; although these are facts from only his exoteric biography. Nor has he invented or drawn from his inner consciousness the philosophy he taught, but only the method of his rendering it. Buddhism being simply esoteric Bodhism taught before him secretly in the arcana of the Brahminical temples, contains, of course, more than one doctrine of which the Lord Buddha never spoke in public." http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_065.htm
So, according to HPB, we now know, that the original treatises by Sri Sankaracharya, as there are reasons to suppose, have not yet fallen into the hands of the Philistines, for they are too jealously preserved in his maths (monasteries, mathams).
Yet, In 1952 a ancient manuscript was released to the public.
I was named: Yogasutrabhasyavivarana of Sankara.
"Many who are interested in the Vivarana may be thankful that this work includes the Sanskrit text of the Vivarana. The first edition of the Vivarana published in 1952 (P. S. Rama Sastri and S. R. Krishnamurthi Sastri, Patanjala-yogasutra-bhasya-vivaranam of Sankara-bhagavatpada [Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, 1952]) has been rare and unavailable for quite some time, despite the interest in it. This publication makes the text more easily accessible. The texts presented here, not only of the Vivarana but also of the YS and the YBh, are rather faithful reproductions of the 1952 edition (p. ix). Some readers may be disappointed to learn this if they anticipated a critical edition of the Vivarana. It has been a while since Wezler ("Philological Observations in the So-called Patanjalayogasutrabhasyavivarana [Studies in the Patanjalayogasastravivarana I]," Indo-Iranian Journal 25 : 17-40) reported the existence of manuscripts that were not used by the editors of the editio princeps, pointed out textual problems of the editio princeps, and suggested the possibility of a new improved edition." Yogasutrabhasyavivarana of Sankara
In the english translation by Trevior, which I read, Shankara hardly disagress with Patanjalis teachings when compared to his own. Here is a link with more info about other editions of the work: Yogasutrabhasyavivarana of Sankara
This looks like a more credible source.
I agree, that the version Trevor Leggett based his book on contains too many strange formulations not fitting for such a work by Shankara. But that was the one which I read.
Yet. Slowly we witness, that more and more rare and even important work appears.
And that is interesting.