Actually the whole sharing of a soul thing really isnt how it is. You come from the great soul of the creator but just like children come from you but are separate entities so are your souls. The only one you really share a soul with is your own opposite.
Who are the Masters?
- Thread starter taijasi
- Start date
Actually the whole sharing of a soul thing really isnt how it is. You come from the great soul of the creator but just like children come from you but are separate entities so are your souls. The only one you really share a soul with is your own opposite.
This is what the masters know. If we all were the same soul then everyone would have an effect on everyone else and no one could break free of that and we would either all be doomed or saved and ultimate realization is that no one really has that much of a hold on us. JESUS realized that when he ascended.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Could be, I like my bride's "we are all one" idee!
I dont think that any of us having only one opposite will once in infinite condtion would want to SHARE that opposite with anyone or will. Didnt that cause the fall to begin with ? So I dont like the concept of we are all one. Maybe one in the truth of these facts but not one as in shared oneness. Thats where individuality comes in. One in truth but many in individuality.
You can love one another as friends, sisters, brothers, ect but the one true love of opposites like a married couple stays with only opposites and thats involves sex , its that kind of love and isnt that way outside that relationship. Thats the difference. So in a way your right but in a way your wrong.
Thats why sex caused the fall but also the knowledge of it and why its so sacred has to do with resurrection. Personally I know I have only one opposite and I will wait for that opposite and never in all infinity will I have that relationshiip outside the two of us. This is the meaning of growing up and what adam and eve didnt know.
Since that relationship really is that way in every aspect of the word the concept of it being (excuse the language) a whore is a lie . The bride is pure or heart and mind and this knowledge is pure. Mary magdalene prophecies are different from what you think and repentance is the knowledge. Scriptures talk about jesus teaching mary mag the bride these things ,......this is what its all about.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Michael means "resembling God", you are as much God as Jesus was, you just don't know it yet apparently.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
"Does it matter? they all share (we all share) the self-same-soul."
--> Bodhisattvas are great people who have achieved enlightenment but refuse to enter nirvana, choosing instead to remain here on earth, keep reincarnating, and helping the rest of us achieve enlightenment faster.
Yes, it matters very much that they are making this huge sacrifice and helping us in this very important way.
--> Bodhisattvas are great people who have achieved enlightenment but refuse to enter nirvana, choosing instead to remain here on earth, keep reincarnating, and helping the rest of us achieve enlightenment faster.
Yes, it matters very much that they are making this huge sacrifice and helping us in this very important way.
L
Lunitik
Guest
This only means they have not dropped their clinging to this world, you can view it as you wish but this is naught but an excuse to avoid - they remain in some way distinct, retaining an ego.
What more ego can there be than thinking you can save the world?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
ROFL, Lunitik I'm gonna send all those damn deluded and hopeless Bodhisattvas your way.
YOU straighten 'em out for us, ok?
L
Lunitik
Guest
ROFL, Lunitik I'm gonna send all those damn deluded and hopeless Bodhisattvas your way.
YOU straighten 'em out for us, ok?
This is your ego as well, why concern yourself with them or with me in your sarcasm? The problem is they are filled with hope, they want to save the world but in doing so they do not even save themselves. Instead of one saved, now there are none, they have wasted their being. You think that this sort of thing is of high moral caliber, but if they had gone into nirvana just their presence would have helped more than any longing to save that caused them to delay.
Ramana Maharshi, as an example, enlightened a 10 year old boy just by the boy coming close to him - among many others, this boy knew nothing of spirituality though yet it has changed his life. He never helped anyone in words, only his presence has ever helped - and the presence of those he helped continues to help many today. Buddha Boy is a Bodhisattva that is quite well known today, who has he helped?
L
Lunitik
Guest
This is a huge problem I have with the Theosophical Society as well, they talk so much about morals and ethics but in oneness what meaning do these things have? It is an utterly wrong approach, that you fight the darkness and leave light. No, it is absurd, you simply bring in light and darkness is dispelled immediately.
The problem is, if you believe yourself righteous and pious, these things will fuel your ego - which the Theosophists have no problem with, of course, part of the whole problem. If you fuel your own ego, how will God live in you? There will be no room, God occupies the space the ego leaves. The very moment the ego is nothing is nirvana, and in that moment you cease to be separate, you are not something distinct any more - you are God, the whole, the absolute.
You will have to choose, either the worldly life with its desires and relations, or the inner life which is godliness. They are the same in fact, it is only you that changes. You do not want to lose what you think you have, but you do not know what you actually have. The worldly life can never fulfill because it can never give you what your soul knows it is and the soul will not settle for less. Yet, nothing is lost, for the part you cling to is contained in the whole that you are. This is the true miracle, and the true esoteric art: how to realize wholeness.
Let go.
How can you let go when you still desire?
Bodhisattva's miss the whole point of Buddha, they can only help others when they themselves are helped first, but they have delayed, they have permitted the mind to continue in their altruistic endeavor. Any Zen master would slap them... believing they can help is ego.
The problem is, if you believe yourself righteous and pious, these things will fuel your ego - which the Theosophists have no problem with, of course, part of the whole problem. If you fuel your own ego, how will God live in you? There will be no room, God occupies the space the ego leaves. The very moment the ego is nothing is nirvana, and in that moment you cease to be separate, you are not something distinct any more - you are God, the whole, the absolute.
You will have to choose, either the worldly life with its desires and relations, or the inner life which is godliness. They are the same in fact, it is only you that changes. You do not want to lose what you think you have, but you do not know what you actually have. The worldly life can never fulfill because it can never give you what your soul knows it is and the soul will not settle for less. Yet, nothing is lost, for the part you cling to is contained in the whole that you are. This is the true miracle, and the true esoteric art: how to realize wholeness.
Let go.
How can you let go when you still desire?
Bodhisattva's miss the whole point of Buddha, they can only help others when they themselves are helped first, but they have delayed, they have permitted the mind to continue in their altruistic endeavor. Any Zen master would slap them... believing they can help is ego.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Hey Andrew, I did a little reading up on Bodhisattvas. I found one terminology which divides them up into three groups -- earthly Bodhisattvas, kosmic Bodhisattvas, and cosmic Bodhisattvas. That sounds like a good way to organize them.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I do know that in Thesophical terminology a Bodhisattva is an Initiate of the 7th degree. That's kind of confusing, because according to this classification, both the Manu and the Maha Chohan are technically also Bodhisattvas. This isn't misleading, however, when you realize that any Initiate of the 6th degree is also a Chohan, while that Adept may or may not be one of the 7 Chohans that are permanent positions (not individuals) associated with Earth's Spiritual Hierarchy.
The same applies to Asekha Adept, which means any Initiate of the 5th Degree (the term a+sekh means no-learner, since these are Initiates with no further lessons to gain from incarnation on this planet). But to also comment on the thread topic in general, a MASTER in both the Theosophical and later, related traditions (Alice Bailey, Agni Yoga, Lucille Cedercrans, etc.) refers to an ADEPT that also takes on students. Therefore, not every Asekha Adept is also a Master ...
The highest point of attainment required in order to move on from Earth's evolution was once the 5th Initiation, but this changed - after millions of years - just a few decades ago. During the time that the Tibetan Master was writing with Alice Bailey, this change occurred, coincident with the World War which led to the World Teacher's decision to also incarnate physically, rather than just astrally. The requirement is now the 6th Initiation, although it certainly doesn't mean that every Adept or Chohan is also following the Path of Earth Service. The latter is just one of many paths available to Earth's "graduates."
This is all by way of commentary, or as an aside. Nick, you might have some thoughts ... but for other folks, please continue the discussion, add your comments, etc.
Namaskar
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Does not this all depend on what you mean by “bodhisatta”? In the Gautama’s works it is clearly a term meaning “enlightened existence” or “enlightened heroic-mindedness” (depending if it is sattva or satva in the Sanskrit—why I like the Pali “enlightened existence”). It is used to refer to himself before enlightenment, roughly when he was working on his own enlightenment.
The purpose of the bodhisatta is bodhicitta (“awakening that which is conscious”, roughly, making “enlightened existence” “awakening existence”)—in a broader sense forcing or intending sudden buddhahood.
Now comes the greater-lesser vehicle argument. Theravada takes the above alone as teaching—awakening existence to awaken that which is conscious, but focusing on one’s own existence. Mahayana adds mahasatta to get awakening existence, greater existence to awaken that which is conscious, thus focusing on “greater existence” (whatever that is). In Gautama’s own words, neti neti, it does not matter that lost in the awakening that is conscious is existence. So both are correct (as I see it).
The issue in meaning then becomes the interpretation of his words. “Many lives and much effort” versus “this life and no effort” (Chan versus everything else). Again, both sides are right. One can take many lifetimes and make much effort. But Hui-Neng is Gautama in the end after all (Buddhahood is Buddhahood). So one life, sudden enlightenment is possible.
Given all of this, the discussion of circles and levels and degrees and initiates just is interpretation. If one admits Huineng as Buddha, it cannot be required.
This is just my own reading, of course.
The purpose of the bodhisatta is bodhicitta (“awakening that which is conscious”, roughly, making “enlightened existence” “awakening existence”)—in a broader sense forcing or intending sudden buddhahood.
Now comes the greater-lesser vehicle argument. Theravada takes the above alone as teaching—awakening existence to awaken that which is conscious, but focusing on one’s own existence. Mahayana adds mahasatta to get awakening existence, greater existence to awaken that which is conscious, thus focusing on “greater existence” (whatever that is). In Gautama’s own words, neti neti, it does not matter that lost in the awakening that is conscious is existence. So both are correct (as I see it).
The issue in meaning then becomes the interpretation of his words. “Many lives and much effort” versus “this life and no effort” (Chan versus everything else). Again, both sides are right. One can take many lifetimes and make much effort. But Hui-Neng is Gautama in the end after all (Buddhahood is Buddhahood). So one life, sudden enlightenment is possible.
Given all of this, the discussion of circles and levels and degrees and initiates just is interpretation. If one admits Huineng as Buddha, it cannot be required.
This is just my own reading, of course.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Radar,
It all depends on your definition of Bodhisattva. This all relates to enlightenment. Your definition seems to say a person can become a Bodhisattva before achieving enloightenment, whereas my definition maintains a person becomes a Bodhisattva only after achieving enlightenment (and then refuses to enter nirvana).
It is fascinating that you bring up the Mahayana-Theravada Buddhist split, because some people (myself included) say that the Bodhisattva concept is the biggest difference between the two traditions. Many Mahayana Buddhists insist we must promise to become Bodhisattvas -- that we must promise that, after we achieve enlightenment, we must forsake entering nirvana, stay here on earth, and help the rest of us quicken our progress towards enlightenment. (It is the forsaking of nirvana in order to render such assistance that is the Mahayana definiton of Bodhisattva, and I agree with such a definition.) Theravadins agree that people have the option of becoming Bodhisattvas after they achieve enlightenment (contrary to what most people believe), but Theravada comes nowhere near close to 'demanding' we promise ourselves to Bodhisattva-hood, like we hear several forms of Mahayana demand we promise. (I wish I had a dollar for every Mahayana service I've attended which 'forced' everyone at the service -- forcing me too -- to take the Bodhisattva pledge.)
It all depends on your definition of Bodhisattva. This all relates to enlightenment. Your definition seems to say a person can become a Bodhisattva before achieving enloightenment, whereas my definition maintains a person becomes a Bodhisattva only after achieving enlightenment (and then refuses to enter nirvana).
It is fascinating that you bring up the Mahayana-Theravada Buddhist split, because some people (myself included) say that the Bodhisattva concept is the biggest difference between the two traditions. Many Mahayana Buddhists insist we must promise to become Bodhisattvas -- that we must promise that, after we achieve enlightenment, we must forsake entering nirvana, stay here on earth, and help the rest of us quicken our progress towards enlightenment. (It is the forsaking of nirvana in order to render such assistance that is the Mahayana definiton of Bodhisattva, and I agree with such a definition.) Theravadins agree that people have the option of becoming Bodhisattvas after they achieve enlightenment (contrary to what most people believe), but Theravada comes nowhere near close to 'demanding' we promise ourselves to Bodhisattva-hood, like we hear several forms of Mahayana demand we promise. (I wish I had a dollar for every Mahayana service I've attended which 'forced' everyone at the service -- forcing me too -- to take the Bodhisattva pledge.)
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Andrew,
You said,
"The highest point of attainment required in order to move on from Earth's evolution was once the 5th Initiation, but this changed - after millions of years - just a few decades ago."
--> That is a fascinating idea, but I will stick with the Theosophical teaching, which says the seventh Initiation has always been the moment of achieving enlightenment -- the moment of finally being allowed to move on from Earth's evolution.
You said,
"The highest point of attainment required in order to move on from Earth's evolution was once the 5th Initiation, but this changed - after millions of years - just a few decades ago."
--> That is a fascinating idea, but I will stick with the Theosophical teaching, which says the seventh Initiation has always been the moment of achieving enlightenment -- the moment of finally being allowed to move on from Earth's evolution.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Not my definition (I do agree with it). Gautama Buddha's. He uses the term to refer to himself quite often in the Pali canon.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Radar,
Does Gautama call himself a Bodhisattva in the Pali canon?
Does Gautama call himself a Bodhisattva in the Pali canon?