Tibetan Buddhist Bardo's - comparable to Blavatsky's 'devachan'? - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T15:02:51Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/tibetan-buddhist-bardo-s-comparable-to-blavatsky-s-devachan?x=1&id=3055387%3ATopic%3A77552&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIf I may, here are three cont…tag:theosophy.net,2012-02-15:3055387:Comment:1074862012-02-15T15:43:48.692ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>If I may, here are three contributions regarding the life as animals:</p>
<p>- First, our lower upadhis decay after death, and in several steps. They are in a constant process of diffusing to other beings which is already active during our life, and this process continues after death. Science talks about dynamic equilibrium or flux balance - a concept that may be very helpful for many problems.</p>
<p>- Second, we have many animal monads in us that help maintaining our body (bodies), and…</p>
<p>If I may, here are three contributions regarding the life as animals:</p>
<p>- First, our lower upadhis decay after death, and in several steps. They are in a constant process of diffusing to other beings which is already active during our life, and this process continues after death. Science talks about dynamic equilibrium or flux balance - a concept that may be very helpful for many problems.</p>
<p>- Second, we have many animal monads in us that help maintaining our body (bodies), and when they are released they can begin another life. And why should not some of them then live a life as an animal instead of serving a human being.</p>
<p>- Third, the six realms of beings as represented in the bhavachakra could (as a thought) in analogy be applied to the human state, too. The animal realm would represent humans that begin to train their will by trying to achieve happiness and avoid pain with their regard mainly directed to maintaining own and familiar survival, and so on.</p> Right, thanks.tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-29:3055387:Comment:809892011-09-29T06:57:10.691ZKatinka Hesselinkhttps://theosophy.net/profile/KatinkaHesselink
Right, thanks.
Right, thanks. Go to the "main" page of The…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-28:3055387:Comment:810542011-09-28T13:00:48.154ZDavid Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/DavidReigle
Go to the "main" page of The Theosophical Network. At top center you will see "Sanskrit Documents." Click on "Buddhist Documents." Scroll down to "sukhavativyuha_sutra."
Go to the "main" page of The Theosophical Network. At top center you will see "Sanskrit Documents." Click on "Buddhist Documents." Scroll down to "sukhavativyuha_sutra." Thanks - that is again helpfu…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-28:3055387:Comment:809712011-09-28T07:27:31.502ZKatinka Hesselinkhttps://theosophy.net/profile/KatinkaHesselink
Thanks - that is again helpful. In the last paragraph you refer to having published sutras on 'this website' - is that theosophy.net or did you publish them elsewhere? Do give the URL.
Thanks - that is again helpful. In the last paragraph you refer to having published sutras on 'this website' - is that theosophy.net or did you publish them elsewhere? Do give the URL. As far as I know, no one has…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-28:3055387:Comment:810522011-09-28T03:52:08.142ZDavid Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/DavidReigle
<div><font face="Arial">As far as I know, no one has published an identification of the Buddhist text that is quoted at the beginning of Mahatma letter #16 (chronological #68), the "devachan" letter. I had hoped to do so earlier, when I said on Sep. 10 that it is the shorter Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, but could not until now. As I then mentioned, the translation given in the Mahatma letter is adapted from the 1871 translation by Samuel Beal in A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese, pp.…</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">As far as I know, no one has published an identification of the Buddhist text that is quoted at the beginning of Mahatma letter #16 (chronological #68), the "devachan" letter. I had hoped to do so earlier, when I said on Sep. 10 that it is the shorter Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, but could not until now. As I then mentioned, the translation given in the Mahatma letter is adapted from the 1871 translation by Samuel Beal in A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese, pp. 378-381. Beal prefaces this with "Translated from the Chinese version of Kumarajiva, as it is found in the Shan-mun-yih-tung" (p. 378), and this latter is the title quoted in the Mahatma letter. Beal had earlier (p. 374) said that this extract is to be given "from the Sutra known as the Wu-liang-sheu-king, in which we have a full account of the Sukhavati, or Paradise in the West, over which Amitabha is supposed to preside." Before that (p. 373), Beal had said about Amitabha that "his title is 'Wu-liang-sheu,' and a Sutra bearing this title was one of the earliest translated into Chinese." So we can easily deduce that the Wu-liang-sheu-king is the Amitabha Sutra. It is this that is found in the Shan-mun-yih-tung, from which Beal translated it, and from there it was quoted and adapted in Mahatma letter 16. So what are these texts?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Today it is common knowledge, findable even on Wikipedia, that the Amitabha Sutra is a popular name for the shorter Sukhavati-vyuha sutra. But this was not known when Beal wrote. He had earlier published his "Translation of the Amitabha Sutra from Chinese" in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, for 1866 (pp. 136-144). There we learn what the Shan-mun-yih-tung is. Beal begins his translation by saying: "The Amitabha Sutra. Extracted from the work called "Shan Mun Yih Tung," or Daily Prayers of the Contemplative School of Priests" (p. 140). He had a few pages earlier introduced it as follows (p. 136): "The following translation of the Amitabha Sutra is made from the Chinese edition of that work, prepared by Kumarajiva, and bound up in a volume known as the 'Daily Prayers of the Buddhist Priests belonging to the Contemplative School' (Shan-mun)" (p. 136). In other words, Beal had translated the shorter Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, popularly called the Amitabha Sutra, as it is found included in a prayer book called the Shan-mun-yih-tung. Since the Mahatma letter had quoted and adapted this material from Beal's 1871 Catena, this letter naturally quoted this material as from the Shan-mun-yih-tung:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">"The Devachan, or land of 'Sukhavati,' is allegorically described by our Lord Buddha himself. What he said may be found in the Shan-Mun-yih-Tung. Says Tathagata:--"</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">But of course, Beal does not use the word "devachan," because this is the Tibetan translation of Sukhavati, and Beal was translating from Chinese. The writer of the Mahatma letter put the word "devachan" in Beal's translation as it was there adapted: "there is a region of Bliss called Sukhavati . . . This, O Sariputra is the 'Devachan.'" So this Mahatma writer knew that devachan translates or is equivalent to sukhavati. He added this word to Beal's translation in place of sukhavati.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Now, critics like William Emmette Coleman might say that this Mahatma writer, i.e., HPB in his view, copied this knowledge from Emil Schlagintweit's 1863 book, Buddhism in Tibet, where we read on pp. 100-101:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">"The happy region Sukhavati, where thrones Amitabha, lies towards the west. In Sanskrit it is called Sukhavati, 'abounding in pleasures;' in Tibetan Devachan, 'the happy;' . . ."</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">However, HPB seems to have been unaware of the fact that devachan is a Tibetan word. In The Key to Theosophy, in answer to the question, "what is Devachan?" she replies, "The 'land of gods' literally" (p. 100), and gives in the glossary to this book: "Devachan (Sans.) The 'Dwelling of the Gods.'" This same definition, also citing it as a Sanskrit word, was repeated in The Theosophical Glossary by HPB, published posthumously three years later. This idea apparently came from another Mahatma letter, #69, in which we read: "The meaning of the terms Devachan and Deva-loka, is identical; "chan" and "loka" equally signifying place or abode." This Mahatma writer, perhaps in fact HPB here, does not show knowledge of the equivalence of devachan and sukhavati, as in Mahatma letter #16.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">HPB told us clearly, in a letter first published by Jinarajadasa in the Introduction to the 1923 book, The Early Teachings of the Masters, that she did the actual writing of most of the Mahatma letters. She put in them what the Mahatmas told her to write; and in some cases, she explained, she was asked to answer for them or on their behalf. This could be such a case. There are many such in the Mahatma letters. It is not true that "chan" means "place" or "abode." As I have earlier posted, the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit word sukhavati is the Tibetan word "bde ba can." The "can" or "chan" is the possessive suffix, meaning "having" or "possessing." It translates the "vat" or "vati" in sukhavati. There is no Sanskrit or Tibetan word "chan" that means "place" or "abode." It is unfortunate that the</font> <font face="Arial">actual derivation of devachan was not made clear to HPB by the Mahatma writer of letter #16, who knew at very least that devachan translates or is equivalent to sukhavati. Now, this error has been perpetuated by Theosophists who followed her in this, right up to the present.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">The original Sanskrit text of the Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra was discovered in China and was first published in 1883. A considerably improved edition was published in 1965. Both of these Sanskrit editions are posted on this website. The first English translation made from the Sanskrit, by F. Max Muller, was published in the book, Buddhist Mahayana Texts, as Sacred Books of the East, vol. 49, in 1894. This is no doubt available online now. In 1996 a new translation was published, made by Luis O. Gomez, under the title, The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light. <br/></font></div> I haven't made up my mind yet…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-23:3055387:Comment:806232011-09-23T06:26:30.862ZKatinka Hesselinkhttps://theosophy.net/profile/KatinkaHesselink
<p>I haven't made up my mind yet about the buddhist vs the theosophical version. </p>
<p>As to your quotes - they do make it clear that you can't find Blavatsky categorically denying rebirth in animal forms in extreme cases. Since we're agreed on the average human being: definitely does reincarnate as a human according to Blavatsky, I think we're talked out. </p>
<p>Except to stress that my point is that what reincarnates lower in case of the very debased criminal or black magician is the…</p>
<p>I haven't made up my mind yet about the buddhist vs the theosophical version. </p>
<p>As to your quotes - they do make it clear that you can't find Blavatsky categorically denying rebirth in animal forms in extreme cases. Since we're agreed on the average human being: definitely does reincarnate as a human according to Blavatsky, I think we're talked out. </p>
<p>Except to stress that my point is that what reincarnates lower in case of the very debased criminal or black magician is the SKANDHAS - which are life atoms in de Puruckers interpretation of Blavatsky and which (I think) even with Blavatsky are said to sometimes pass into lower life forms. I remember an explanation of a Buddha sermon in which he said that the lazy sweeper got reincarnated as the grass that was turned into a sweep (is that English?). The theosophical response (I think Blavatsky, but you've made me more careful) was that it was only his lower skandhas that reincarnated as such. The higher self would go to devachan and then return as a human being.</p>
<p>The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to split the stream of karma into several eddies, which does not really make a lot of sense. </p> Yes, I think you'll have to t…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-21:3055387:Comment:797892011-09-21T08:41:03.678ZKatinka Hesselinkhttps://theosophy.net/profile/KatinkaHesselink
<p>Yes, I think you'll have to take that as 'according to Katinka's understanding of Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters'. </p>
<p>The idea that we can't go back really is up for reexamining, IMO. I don't think you'll find a Blavatsky quote for that one either. </p>
<p>But perhaps we can meet in that last paragraph: if a criminal or a black magician lives without a connection to his Higher Self, doesn't that mean that the part of him that is manifestly him - his personality - moves in a different…</p>
<p>Yes, I think you'll have to take that as 'according to Katinka's understanding of Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters'. </p>
<p>The idea that we can't go back really is up for reexamining, IMO. I don't think you'll find a Blavatsky quote for that one either. </p>
<p>But perhaps we can meet in that last paragraph: if a criminal or a black magician lives without a connection to his Higher Self, doesn't that mean that the part of him that is manifestly him - his personality - moves in a different direction from that Higher Self? That, in other words, it is meaningless to say that 'his' Higher Self moves on to higher spheres, if in fact he hasn't contributed anything at all to the evolution of that Higher Self? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Still, I have to say - the whole reasoning does become so convoluted now, it makes me almost prefer the simple (and perhaps simplistic) classic exoteric Buddhist version. </p> Since the Mahatma Letters are…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-20:3055387:Comment:799432011-09-20T08:23:36.580ZKatinka Hesselinkhttps://theosophy.net/profile/KatinkaHesselink
<p>Since the Mahatma Letters are clearly the source of all details we have for spiritual evolution and devachan, I looked them up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What follows are a few quotes that speak to me, though they don't speak on the topic I originally started the thread on. Still, relevant in a broad way:</p>
<p>p. 65, letter 18 (chronological version)</p>
<p>>> At that point the great Law begins its work of selection. Matter found entirely divorced from spirit is thrown over into the still…</p>
<p>Since the Mahatma Letters are clearly the source of all details we have for spiritual evolution and devachan, I looked them up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What follows are a few quotes that speak to me, though they don't speak on the topic I originally started the thread on. Still, relevant in a broad way:</p>
<p>p. 65, letter 18 (chronological version)</p>
<p>>> At that point the great Law begins its work of selection. Matter found entirely divorced from spirit is thrown over into the still lower worlds - into the <em>sixth</em> "GATI" or "way of rebirth" of the vegetable and mineral worlds, and of the primitive animal forms. From thence, matter ground over in the workshop of nature proceeds <em>soulless</em> back to its Mother Fount; while the <em>Egos</em> purified of their dross are enabled to resume their progress once more onward. It is here, then, that the laggard E<em>gos</em> perish by the millions. It is the solemn moment of the "survival of the fittest", the annihilation of those unfit. It is but matter (or material man) which is compelled by its own weight to descend to the very bottom of the "circle of necessity" to there assume animal form; as to the winner of that race throughout the worlds - the Spiritual Ego, he will ascend from star to star, from one world to another, circling onward to rebecome the once pure planetary Spirit, then higher still, to finally reach its first starting point, and from thence - to merge into MYSTERY. >></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that the black magician gets rid of all connection to his spiritual ego, so he would logically descend 'to the very bottom of the "circle of necessity"'. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do remember that to the adepts matter is more than just 'matter', it includes everything that has 'form': emotion, even thought. </p> @Jon - I have to admit, I can…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-20:3055387:Comment:800392011-09-20T07:39:38.779ZKatinka Hesselinkhttps://theosophy.net/profile/KatinkaHesselink
@Jon - I have to admit, I can't find the source for that one. Somewhere in the Mahatma Letters perhaps? It's at times like this that I really miss Henk Spierenburg.
@Jon - I have to admit, I can't find the source for that one. Somewhere in the Mahatma Letters perhaps? It's at times like this that I really miss Henk Spierenburg. Thanks, David Melik,for the a…tag:theosophy.net,2011-09-20:3055387:Comment:799422011-09-20T02:36:11.935ZDavid Reiglehttps://theosophy.net/profile/DavidReigle
Thanks, David Melik,for the additional information. Yes, it does seem that almost everyone, whether Theosophist or Buddhist, takes Devachan to be a Hindu term and idea because of the supposed "deva" beginning it. But it is not, and the Mahatma writers who introduced it into Theosophy were never confused about it. They brought it in as equivalent to Sukhavati (see Mahatma Letter #16), and that is exactly what it is. To spell this out more clearly, it is the Tibetan word transliterated as bde ba…
Thanks, David Melik,for the additional information. Yes, it does seem that almost everyone, whether Theosophist or Buddhist, takes Devachan to be a Hindu term and idea because of the supposed "deva" beginning it. But it is not, and the Mahatma writers who introduced it into Theosophy were never confused about it. They brought it in as equivalent to Sukhavati (see Mahatma Letter #16), and that is exactly what it is. To spell this out more clearly, it is the Tibetan word transliterated as bde ba can. The initial b in bde is silent. The ba is usually pronounced something like va or wa. What is written as can is pronounced chan. So devachan is not a bad phonetic rendering of it. The Tibetan bde ba translates Sanskrit sukha, meaning happiness or bliss. The Tibetan can is the possessive suffix, translating the Sanskrit vat, or feminine vati. So it means possessing happiness. The Tibetan translations of Sanskrit were standardized more than a thousand years ago, and there is no mistake about this. In the Tibetan Buddhist canon, bde ba can or phonetic devachan always translates Sanskrit sukhavati.