Katinka Hesselink left the TS

Katinka Hesselink, a very well-known dutch theosophist has announced in her blog :

http://www.moderntheosophy.com/

that she is no longer a member of the TS.

Katinka has been criticizing the TS, especially in the more recent years.

Harvey, I think you should read the last posts of her blog, probably you will find many ideas in common with Katinka.

I think theosophy loses a very devoted worker, but we, of course, have to respect her choice.

If I remember correctly, the FPMT teaches that people are often reborn as animals. I wonder if Katinka believes that.

Yes, I sympathise with her. We both tried to change the TS from within. If the TS doesn't want to change, then to persist is merely to provoke disharmony.

Disharmony is the very opposite of what theosophy is all about.

The history of the TS is splinter after splinter after splinter. How sad! HPB warned us about this, and she turned out to be right.

Yes, she wrote about the differences between theosophy and buddhism in after death states and reincarnation in the theosophy.net. Probably one of the most interesting discussions that I have seen there.

I highly respect buddhism, in the past I have been connected to the local branch of Portuguese Buddhist Union, but theosophy gives me a more complete view of the Universe.

Aldebaran,

As I say in my signature, Madame Blavatsky’s aim was to rescue the archaic truths in organized religions which always become distorted and perverted as the centuries go by. It is a widely-held belief among Buddhists today in Asia that humans can be reborn as animals, bugs, and so forth, but I do not think this is what Buddha orignally taught. I, too, hold Buddhism to be a great religion/philosophy, but their idea of humans-often-reborn-as-animals-or-bugs keeps me away from forms of Buddhism which teach this. There are also Buddhist traditions which do not teach the idea of rebirth, and this keeps me away from them, too. (I am not aware of any version of Buddhism which teaches that humans are reborn as humans and only humans.)

Nick, as you know I am close to Buddhism although I have never considered myself to be a Buddhist. I have attended groups run in the Theravadan tradition and in the Tibetan tradition. In both cases, the monks hardly ever referred to the question of re-birth. I never knew whether this was because they felt it was not helpful to Western practitioners, or whether it was because they don't attach much relevance to it themselves. The emphasis was on how everything is reborn in the moment; and the attention we should pay to the karma we are creating in the moment rather than the karma that we might have brough with us from the past, or indeed from previous lives.

I think there is a difference between how Buddhism is practised by uneducated villagers in Tibet and Thailand, and how Buddhism is taught. Remember, many early Buddhists were brought up in the Hindu tradition, and they would have retained some of the Hindu beliefs on reincarnation; and Tibetans had their own religion called Bon before Buddhism was introduced. Wide-spread beliefs in Asia today do not necessarily reflect the teachings of Buddha, or the way those teachings are presented in the West.

Harvey,

I, too, am close to Buddhism, and I used to call myself a Buddhist for many years. But I found that, as soon as I identified myself as a Buddhist, other Buddhist automatically expected me to believe in a long list of Buddhist dogmas that I do not believe in. So, I stopped calling myself a Buddhist for many years, just to save myself from dogmatic orders from fundamentalist Buddhists that I had to believe such and such. (I was once told, "If you believe that, then you are not a Buddist!" My response was, "That works for me.") But I have just recently started calling myself a Buddhist again. But I always qualify it by saying, "I am a Buddhist, but not in traditional definition of the word." By this, I accept all Theosophical teachings as teachings that I believe Buddha taught (and I do believe he taught them) including the Atman, reincarnation instead of rebirth, etc. (This, of course, infuriates modern-day Buddhists.) But this is what HPB told us we are to do, to bring back the original teaching that have been tossed out of Buddhism, etc.

I have had many, many discussions with Buddhists who do not want to talk about reincarnation, rebirth, etc. (and it sounds like you have, too). Quite frankly, I think they are wrong about it. But ideas such as no-Atman and no-reincarnation are strong dogmas in today's Buddhism, and most Buddhists will not even allow me to discuss it with them.

I agree that uneducated Asian villagers often practice a form of Buddhism, Bon, etc., that is different than what was originally taught. We can only hope that Theosophy will at least encourage open-mindedness and critical thinking among such people.

Nick, we might find fault with the superstitions that Asian villagers have integrated into their Buddhist beliefs, but I think Western Buddhists are often guilty of another failing. Whereas an Asian is brought up with Buddhism as part of the fabric of his life, and is probably content to make steady progress in this incarnation by earning merit, we tend to seize the idea of Nirvana and make it the goal of our meditations. I think we have taken it out of context. The Buddha sought to end the suffering of his fellow-man, and in doing so achieved enlightenment. We would do well to follow his example and forget about Nirvana; just work day in, day out, for the benefit of our fellow travellers along the way.

Harvey,

Let's look at both sides of the question.

I agree that there is too much superstition in rural Asian Buddhism. Most of these people's devotional time is spent asking for things -- asking for money, for good grades, for a chance to go to heaven, etc. But on the other hand, millions of people in this world have a very hard life (especially Chinese pesants) and they want to do what they can for a little rest in heaven after they die. I, too, am weary at all of the things I have had to deal with in this life, and I, too, am willing to do a little extra to help get me into heaven. But I also agree with you that the sign of true spirituality is we being so busy helping others that we completely forget about ourselves, this should be our goal, and this goal is completely left out of the liturgy of much of rural Asian Buddhism

By the way, I disagree that most people make nirvana the goal of their meditating. I think their goal is heaven, which is quite different. And wouldn't you say that heaven is usually the goal of chanting rather than the goal of meditating? Or is this a difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism?

Don't get me wrong, Nick, I wasn't finding fault with Buddhism as practised in rural Asia; it's worked for over two thousand years. I was just pointing out that we shouldn't reject Buddhism in the West on the basis of what we see in the East.

I don't remember Heaven being talked about in Theravaden circles. But whatever you call it, it was a desire to escape the round of pain, suffering and rebirth. And if that's your goal, I think it might be counter-productive! It could demonstrate that you aren't ready for it.

Harvey,

But we have to have teachings for everyone at every level of society. I remember attending a Chinese Buddhist temple service in Los Angeles at Hsi Lai Temple.

http://www.hsilai.org/en/index.html

I would say 90% of their practice was chanting and 10% was meditation. (Most of the members attend the main temple service, which was all chanting. But there was also a small meditation center in the back, which a few members also took advantage of.) The way they described it, chanting is for the "elementary student" practitioners, while meditation is for the "college student" practitioners (which is a very good way to put it).

I agree that the true goal is for us to forget ourselves and devote ourselves to helping others. But we also must put forward a goal for those people who are not spiritually advanced enough to understand this true goal.