Coëmgenu wrote: Even if Amitâbha was a Chinese word, Chinese EBTs were not translated from Sanskrit, thus the amṛta --> amitābha confusion she suggests is even more unfounded.
The original conception of the ideal of an impersonal divine light has been anthropomorphized with time.
Which is perfectly fine. The etymologies presented, however, are... well... "interesting".
Coëmgenu wrote: The etymologies presented, however, are... well... "interesting".
Yeah, which is one of the reasons I no longer consider her an authority. She frequently did that with etymologies throughout her writings. Jordan Maxwell does the same thing, her modern-day follower.
According to Madame Blavatsky, the Buddha only founded the institutional religion of Buddhism, while the real truth is the esoteric doctrine which she called "Bodhism."
Those information is to be realised by direct knowledge based on the nikayas. And her knowledge is not complete. Did she ever claim she has psychic powers? Many other Buddhism also have secret teachings.
But, she and leadbeaters are prolific writers.
Apparently Blavatsky was the first Western woman to officially take the 5 precepts. She might even be the first (Western woman) overall (official or unofficial).
So is this her buddhist membership card?
There is a theosophy society in Singapore that anyone can join. I am not sure if they give you a membership card.
chownah wrote: So is this her buddhist membership card?
If she considered herself a Buddhist, then she was one. As I mentioned in another thread, being Buddhist doesn't make one a Buddha or even mean that one is good or advanced in any way.
The other main guru of Blavatsky and other theosophists of her era was called 'Koot Hoomi', again a Hindu, not a Tibetan.
It's a scanned typescript so I can't easily quote chunks of it, but it certainly makes fascinating reading.
The descriptions of his looks like blue eyes and golden complexion reminds me of certain descriptions of the Buddha in the nikaya.
As has repeatedly been demonstrated in this thread, Madame Blavatsky claimed to be in contact with a Tibetan guru. The Mahatma Letters also claimed to be from a Tibetan guru.
There is no evidence, as far as I've seen, to support Madame Blavatsky's and Theosophy's claim to have somehow been connected to Tibetan gurus. Ignoring a false or unsubstantiated claim doesn't make it go away.
Count on Kim to find someone hostile to HPB and theosophy and someone who never met her gurus or Blavatsky (I think).
There are plenty more out there from her day, usually churchy folk or secularists.
Pardon my frankness Santi, but you have presented only assertions regarding Blavatsky.
The Mahatma Letters were from the two HINDU gurus I mentioned earlier.
HPB knew many adepts in a bodhisattva brotherhood and some were Tibetans (along with other nationalities), but her primary sources of teachings were from the two Indian gurus.
Last edited by retrofuturist on Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Frankness which violated TOS has been edited out.
The Pānaduravādaya, [the record of the debate] was published in English in the book Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face in 1878. This book inspired Colonel HENRY STEEL OLCOTT and Madame HELENA PETROVNA BLAVATSKY, founders of the Theosophical Society, to travel to Ceylon, where they played active roles in the revival of Buddhism.
Will wrote: Count on Kim to find someone hostile to HPB and theosophy and someone who never met her gurus or Blavatsky (I think).
I'm just looking for a bit of balance, Nicholas, since you provide none at all: all of your sources in this thread are from within Theosophy, just as all of your sources in the Euthanasia thread are implacably opposed to euthanasia. If we are to have a useful discussion - which is the purpose of the board - we need both sides and (IMO) you need to argue your side rather than just plonk links and quotes in front of us.