The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

[Nick the Pilot]

I thought it would be good to give Theosophy's view of who the Messiah might be. But first I must acknowledge that there are both Christians and non-Christians who are Theosophists, and there are Christian Theosophists (and even non-Christian Theosophists) who disagree with my ideas on this topic.
　
Theosophy acknowledges that Gautama Buddha was a great teacher, and that Gautama has a special status among the leaders of the world. Some Theosophists (but not all Theosophists) think Jesus may have been a reincarnation of Maitreya, who will be our next Buddha thousands of years in the future. According to the theory, Maitreya/Jesus came to establish Christianity merely as a foundation for establishing an even greater religion in the future, when he returns. In this way, even non-Theosophists are willing to consider the idea that Jesus/Maitreya might be the Messiah, even if he is not a deity. (Some Theosophists feel there is no reason to assume the Messiah is or will be a deity.) Of course there are some Theosophists who disagree with this theory.
　
There is another theory. Gautama Buddha was the fourth Buddha, and Vairocana was the first Buddha. It is said that Vairocana may also reincarnate again on earth one day, so the idea of a Messiah may refer to Vairocana not Maitreya.

 

[Lunitik]

Why do you say Meitreya will come in many thousands of years time?

Originally, it was to be 5,000 years:

Then when the Dispensation of the perfect Buddha is 5,000 years old, the relics, not receiving reverence and honor will go to places where they can receive them... This, Sariputta, is called the disappearance of relics

However, this is no longer so:

If, Ananda, women had not retired from the household life to the houseless one, under the doctrine and discipline announced by the Tathagata, Dharma Ananda would long endure; a thousand years would the good Dharma abide. But since, Ananda, women have now retired from the household life to the houseless one, under the doctrine and the discipline announced by the Tathagata, not long Ananda, will Dharma endure; but five hundred years Ananda, until the Dharma abide

Today, Buddhism is very much split and confusing for outsiders to even approach. There is no pure Dharma, it is impossible to find. We can only say what is the oldest that we have a record of, each is fighting for what they see as the most pure branch, debating each other over what is true and what is made up. This has all been prophecied, however:

The monks and stream attainers (followers) will be strong in their union with Dharma for 500 years after the Blessed One's Parinirvana. In the second 500 years they will be strong in meditation; in the third period of 500 years they will be strong in erudition. In the fourth 500 years period they will only be occupied with gift giving. The final or fifth period of 500 years will see only fighting and reproving among the monks and followers. The pure Dharma will then become invisible (disappear)

I will say that for me the maitreya has already been and gone, but we have expected the man to be named "Maitreya", in reality the word simply means "friend". Can you find the one who is the seekers friend, rather than one who is trying to babysit or control? He is very well known, millions of people have grown through him, even after his death he is more popular than ever...

He has actually spoken some about the founder of your religion, although what he says is quite mixed. He says she was one of the most powerful female mystics in history, and yet he says that The Secret contains little of value at all. Of course, he also speaks negativity of what the Theosophic Society did to poor Nityananda and his brother Krishnamurti - honestly, it is shocking to me that anyone still supports the movement after that. I hope you find that friend on your path, but stop allowing your mind to believe it knows something. Everything it knows is utterly irrelevant to religion, it cannot be otherwise.

 

[Lunitik]

While not an authority to Buddhism world wide, you might be interested to note that the current (16th) Dalai Lama has realized the metteyya - calling him the greatest incarnation since Buddha himself. Can you find him? I hope all do...

 

[radarmark]

Chaophakao ("Lord White Buddah") was how I was introduced to the Maitreya. Interesting that whether lesser, greater or diamond vehicle, there is little differnce in the concept. However, like all ideas (especially important ones) the Sakimuni's message has fragmented--perhaps it has to. Ultimately each individual must come home to the bosom of G!d in their own way. Perhaps as history unfolds the sheep of Isaiah 56:8, John 10:16 and 11:52, and the many mansions of John 14:2 promulgate to ensure each of us can see that of G!d within.

Yep, Nick, this problem fragments not just Theosophy, but all Religions. A Religion (used in the exoteric sense) is just too confining an idea and we need to return to the religion (used in the esoteric sense), where all are welcome.

In fact that is how I differentiate between (IMHO) acceptable and unacceptable Religions--the Religion that does not accept the religion of anyone and everyone just is too exclusive.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[Lunitik]

A Religion (used in the exoteric sense) is just too confining an idea and we need to return to the religion (used in the esoteric sense), where all are welcome.

Love this!

This is what I mean by saying the mystic currents are what are important, not the surface nonsense. Within the deeper realms of religion, the Zen master and Sufi saint see no difference in one another. The Yogi and Kabbalist, they see that it is all the same.

The exoteric is only tradition, meaningless beyond this... the esoteric will take you beyond.

 

[Lunitik]

Everything Flows!

False, the esoteric, the mystical is that which is utterly still. It is that which all that flows arises in, the observer of the coming and going. Many things happen throughout ones life, yet one is always one, seeing his own change still he is apart from that. Eventually, sometimes gradually, sometimes in an explosion, the observer observes itself. Now one is utterly alone with only one, and yet nothing is lost, only its own integrity, its own wholeness, is found.

The true mystic, no matter the line, is he who has tasted of the silent stillness, that drinks from it frequently and eventually lives there - realizing he is that, that he is now home. Realizing he has been searching far and wide for something which is his very nature, what else to do than laugh? These distractions have merely caused him to forget, now he remembers, now all he has left is to celebrate. Enjoying everything as it comes, and yet knowing it is again something which will eventually go. It matters not, for while it is here it is beautiful, and to hold on to it for too long is simply selfish, let it dance with another as well. This is the mystics life, knowing nothing, knowing the very nature of nothingness, understanding the beauty of absolute emptiness, its vastness, its depth... and yet smiling knowing it is all.

If you like, you can change it to "Every thing flows", it is perfectly valid to say that all matter changes... it is temporary, but there is something which is not.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Radar,

I agree about the fragmenting of Buddhism, but if it is true that Mairtreya or Vairocana will return to establish a new religion (which would merely be a reinstating of Gautama's and Vairocana's original teachings), this would remove the problem of fragmenting.

You posed the question as to whether Buddhism needed to become fragmented over the centuries. Organized religions always become distorted and perverted as the centuries go by (a basic theosophical concept). Fortunately, great teachers like Gautama and Maitreya periodically reincarnate and re-teach the teachings in their original form.

I think you are also mentioning the mixing of the ideas of the Messiah and the deifying of Jesus. It is important to point out that a person can be the Messiah and not be a deity.

 

[radarmark]

Ah, Nick remember my background, Religious Society of Friends. No dogma. G!d is pretty much what you want H!r to be. Kinds like AA and "higher power" (which I explain to incoming Bikers as "the ultimate Harley"--usually works, though some of them decide to personalize it and make it their personal ride). The anointed one was originally very mortal in the OT.

The thing is that Chaophakao/Maitreya does not return until the Dharma "is near forgotten" amongst manknind. I do not believe the teaching is anywhere near this point.

Nor do I beleive religions become distorted and perverted and we all need to return to one Religion (Great Teaching). My point was that the outward manifestations of the tecahing (Religion) fragment and crumble but the core (religion) growns stronger. The fragmentation is good. Ultimately we all have our own religion (way to the G!d head).


Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[Lunitik]

Nor do I beleive religions become distorted and perverted and we all need to return to one Religion (Great Teaching).

There can only be One religion, what is wrong today is that there are only 300 to choose from - and you are not considered religious at all if you do not choose, you will be shunned by all the devout religious people. What is more, if we take the top four religions, already 5-6 billion people are included - the other 296 have only 1 billion to share, and many of those are not religious at all.

No, we need to stop segregating the religions, allowing something so idiotic to cause so much separation and violence - it has been an ongoing thing since the beginning of recorded history that people have died in the name of some God. There should be as many religous paths as there are people, and all the great teachers of yesterday and today should be brought in to benefit your own voyage. We need to lose this stigma about those who have reached being worshipped and simply learn from them. Prophets, Avatars, Bodhisatvas, Messengers - these are all a nonsense, only what they have discovered is important, their interpretation of it is their own...

That discovery is the One religion, who can control such a thing though? Only the One, never a man again, there has been enough of that nonsense.

 

[radarmark]

Lunistik, please we are all grown up here. Your use of "False" can be taken as (1) quite offensive and (2) quite ignorant, and I am sure you mean neither. "I do not agree" or "on the contrary, I believe" are much better thought out and sensitive transitions.

As for your point. Big deal, you are Aristotelian and follow Nyaya, I am Heraclitian and follow Huieng. You think the abstraction is imporant and I the experience.

Why is it you take this quite trite and childish approach in discussions?

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[Lunitik]

As far as faiths becoming distorted:

.... hence, no enlightened man has ever written
anything. But disciples have taken notes. All the
literature that exists in the name of enlightened
people is nothing but disciples’ notes.

The problem becomes more and more complicated
because the disciple is writing something which he
does not understand. He loves the master, he has
fallen into a deep love affair, but he does not
understand the mystery of the master. He is under
his magical influence, but he does not know his
secret. Unless he knows his own secret he will
never know the secret of the master, because they
are not two things.

The disciple thinks, has been thinking for ages,
that the words of the master should not be lost;
they are so precious, they are pure gold. At least
something for the future generations should be
collected. But his understanding is very small, and
he writes according to his understanding.

First, much is lost when the master speaks; then
much is lost when the disciple hears; then much is
lost when the disciple writes. And the disciple
writes in one language, and then it goes on being
translated into other languages. It becomes a
faraway echo of the original...

 

[Lunitik]

Lunistik, please we are all grown up here. Your use of "False" can be taken as (1) quite offensive and (2) quite ignorant, and I am sure you mean neither. "I do not agree" or "on the contrary, I believe" are much better thought out and sensitive transitions.

As for your point. Big deal, you are Aristotelian and follow Nyaya, I am Heraclitian and follow Huieng. You think the abstraction is imporant and I the experience.

Why is it you take this quite trite and childish approach in discussions?

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

I am correcting your mistake, how you receive it matters not.

I have provided a way for you to know it yourself, you have chosen to identify with your ego.

 

[radarmark]

Wow, Lunitik. I agree.... did you not notice the explicit difference I make between "Religion" and "religion"? Why all the pomposity?

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[radarmark]

Ah, child, I hope someday you may learn to take that really huge plank out of your eye before bothering me about the mote in mine. I do not do preaching well. I do understanding, you should try it sometime.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[Lunitik]

Wow, Lunitik. I agree.... did you not notice the explicit difference I make between "Religion" and "religion"? Why all the pomposity?

You have not distinguished at all, because you have said you do not believe either is valid... in reality, when all faiths are combined and reconciled intelligently, then shall their collective pointers be recognized. Always, it is better to get other perspectives, rather than devote yourself to only one. When the distinctions are gone, however, now there is only one true religion and the old religious founders merely become a handful of the many who have pointed to it. It is absolutely against religion to attempt to say they point at something different, and as such they should be understood as a few chapters in an ongoing book.

This is my disagreement with your original statement, I do say there is only one true religion, of which several famous people have become notorary for taking to the pinnacle. The pinnacle is the same no matter what path you take to the peak, though.

 

[Lunitik]

Ah, child .... I do understanding, you should try it sometime.

I understand perfectly well your arrogance, you ask me to avoid harming your ego, I will not. I am perfectly willing to point out when your ego is overly asserting itself, when you are taking offense based on something you have imagined yourself. It is quite absurd really, is it not? Getting yourself worked up because you are not being spoken to as a superior.

I am absolutely noncompromising, for what will I compromise? In that compromise, truth is lost, it becomes only half and a half truth is no truth at all. This is what you'd prefer, you cannot ignore your hangups and see what is said, you must bring in ego.

 

[Lunitik]

In fact, my whole purpose here is to utterly destroy all ego's encountered, to kill each and every one of them. You will protect it because it is fragile, but you see how easily I have caused a crack? I have simply said a quote you insist on adding to every post recently is utterly wrong - yet it is only a fact.

It is as if you are getting offended because I said you have a chin.

 

[radarmark]

Let me rephrase what I said earlier. Smash your own (too large) ego before you assume that someone else needs or wants your help.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[radarmark]

In fact this is all I said (I notice no overwhelming sense of ego). "In fact that is how I differentiate between (IMHO) acceptable and unacceptable Religions--the Religion that does not accept the religion of anyone and everyone just is too exclusive.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows"

Fine, you are entitled to believe that there is only one way and that you are the truth and the light. I just believe differently, that there are currently billions of ways and that I am not in possession of absolute truth. I just have some different experiences, opinions and beliefs than you. And I use "true" and "flse" and "know" and "believe" in the standard english usage (perhaps a little too bent to the scientific side, but I try).

Try listening to an old folk tune "Until it is time for you to go" by a Native American girl Buffy St Marie or Dylan's "My Back Pages". The joy of living is the point--being a willow that bends or younger than that--and not being a great straight oak or so much wiser.

In fact that is how I differentiate between (IMHO) acceptable and unacceptable Religions--the Religion that does not accept the religion of anyone and everyone just is too exclusive.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows

 

[Lunitik]

Let me rephrase what I said earlier. Smash your own (too large) ego before you assume that someone else needs or wants your help.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

I have assumed nothing of the sort, you have projected this on me...

I respond to what is posted, it is not always that it is even directed at the person I reply to... quite often it is intended to others that may read.