Re: K. Paul Johnson on HPB, the Mahatmas, Buddhism and Tibet
May 07, 1998 06:00 AM
by Jerry Schueler
> DALLAS :
>Very few "Western" visitors can distinguish one Tibetan "school"
>This comment is made because very few know enough Tibetan to
>directly question their sources.
Correct, but there are some general teaching, such as the three
bodies of Buddha, that are accepted by all Tibetan schools.
Actually, probably the biggest difference between schools is
>For instance: Can a distinction be traced between the highly
>philosophical precepts of the several Mahayana Schools, and the
>various Bhons and Tantrik schools where physiolgical and psychic
>practices are outlined ? The latter have nothing to do with the
>enhancement of the enthical/moral man's disciplines in daily
>life -- that play so profound a part in the Mahayana Schools --
>the knowledge of, control of, and elevtion of the "personality."
Yes, of course such a disctinction can be made, and has been
made in print by many modern writers. And you are absolutely
wrong with your last statement, which is a typical Theosophical
statement made by people who read HPB but do not read
the Tantras. Even HH the Dali Lama studies and appreciates
and teaches the Tantras. I thought the same way until I began
reading the Tibetan books that now flooed the market. Tibetan
Tantra is not Hindu Tantra, and HPB was against Hindu Tantras
which emphasize power. I am not sure from her writings that she
ever understood the difference, and so I am uncertain that she
was ever intitiated or taught anything at all about Tibetan Tantras,
which are vastly different from the Hindu. She just uses the term
"tantra" without distinction, and her readers continue this error.
>The Great Adepts do not advertise, nor do they go in search of
>visitors or of converts.
Is writing a book "advertisment?" Is a student's book a form
of advertisment? If they just sit in meditation, how do you
think others are able to find them? I think your statement is
a bit naive. Even Jesus went in search of his disciples, and had
to talk them into leaving their families and jobs.
>Their message is what HPB published.
>The "Mahatma Letters" makes their methods and intent plain.
The Masters behind the MLs are only one small school and
do not represent all Adepts. Their teaching on abstinance,
for example, shows how narrow their views are.
>said in "Mahatma Letters" they can easily conceal themselves (if
>such is needed) in the vast wastes of the trackless, barren
>mountain environment that the Himalayas are. They do not live to
>be admired or approached by anyone who has not "earned" that
>privilege by showing that they have undersood, and are able to
>apply to their personal living the precepts and disciplines that
>are outlined in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. I only repeat what HPB
>and They have said in several places.
I am not disagreeing with what you say, but I think you are taking
it all out of context. Her Adepts were just one small school, and what
is said for them does not apply to all Adepts.
>Curiosity attracts -- confusion. And more confusion is created in
>the minds of those who do not yet know how to distinguish the
>philosophy of altruism from the attractions of the many and
>various kinds of selfishness and ambition.
>The evaluation of these things is always made by ones' self.
Agreed, although I have to also agree with Buddha that some
confusion and doubt is healthy in order to keep us grounded.
Please answer this: Is Theosophy and the modern Theosophical
movement a "philosophy of altruism" alone, or is it more than
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application