The following passage seems to go against basic Buddhist thought- at least what i have heard- that there is no “self ” outside of the 5 skandhas, and what we experience as “self” is nothing other than a coalescence of the stuff’s of the five skandhas, perhaps mixed with a bit of avidya. but here is a passage that seems to be saying otherwise, which seems to imply that there is something “other,” which actually maintains from life to life- another no -no, i thought, in buddhist philosophy. What do you think?
“According to tantric theory, the residence of the mind is not the brain, but the heart. The mind is said to reside in the indestructable drop at the heart chakra. There are two types of indestructable drop, on coarse, and one subtle. The coarse drop is a coalescence of cells from the semen of father and ovum from mother, and the subtle drop is a coalescence of subtle levels of consciousness and subtle physical energies. The course drop is said to be “indestructible” because it endures throughout one’s life, from the moment of conception untill the final moment of physical death. The subtle drop is “indestructible” because it endures throughout all of one’s lives, from beginningless time and into the future, untill the time of enlightenment, at which point one’s body is transformed into the perfect body of a buddha.”
Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, by John Powers. page 295/6
The problem is that theosophy is somewhere between holistic and pluralistic (not dualistic). There is one ultimate reality, but that ultimate reality can’t be reduced to the physical – as scientists often try to do. It can’t be reduced to just spirit either – so we get caught in philosophies that either overemphasize one or another aspect of it.
I found a webpage that actually explains various types of Vedanta quite well. Makes me wish (again) that my philosophy of India teacher had actually gone beyond the above into various types of Vedanta – but no, he preferred the philosophy of grammar (linguists, what to do with them). Well, after that rant – here’s the quote:
http://www.cejournal.org/GRD/Ramakrishna.htm
Turns out I actually agree with Aurobindo on this one. Who’d have thought.
[...] question started as comment no. 8 in the post “sort of perplexing” by Latebrake. I invite my first and only discussion [...]