Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00222)

>Dear Jerry:
>
>  Your post on the Nirmanakaya and on Turiya is a good reason why
>I take refuge in quoting what others say.  Specifically what is
>said in Theosophy.  It is also why the Buddhist Bhikkus prelude
>their answers with the statement:  "Thus have I heard ..."
>
I have no problem with quotes, unless they are wrong. Thus have
I heard can be right or wrong, and the teller doesn't want to take
any responsibility. Most of your quotes are fine, and I usually
have no problem with HPB, but every now and then she makes
an error that somehow was never corrected. I found two obvious
ones in The Inner Group Teachings that I posted on theos-l awhile
back, but no one really cares much.


>While in India (for 35 years) I spent many an hour at the Royal
>Asiatic Society library pouring over the ancient texts (in
>translation), and listening to many a lecture on the ancient
>sacred texts and their interpretation -- Hindu, Tibetan and
>Buddhist, that, of course counts for nothing in an attempt to
>reconcile our view points, but I do think that I have had a
>longer acquaintance with oriental literature than you (and most
>here) have had,  and also that I have found that the Theosophical
>interpretation is far more broad based than recent Orientalism.
>It might be of interest to debate the matter with some real
>Buddhist, Tibetan and Hindu scholars who are versed in ideas and
>not merely in words.
>
Well. I am not really trying to question your background or your
knowledge. I have a great deal of respect for you, and usually
agree with what you say. But there are a few things that just
don't settle right (and regardless of your background and
training, you are wrong about Buddhist Tantricism and all
you have to do is read some of it to see this). Psychism is
a personal subject and you are simply taking the party line.
So does Eldon, whom I also greatly admire. I just want to
point out that a Theosophist can have an opposing viewpoint
and still be a Theosophist. OK?


>I eventually realized that most of the translators made some
>things far more confusing than they need be.  Also that ideas are
>far more valuable than words are.
>
OK.


>I am sorry indeed that the definitions that you use and trust are
>different from those of Theosophy.
>
No, they aren't. I guess you just plain refuse to listen on this
subject, for some reason. There is NO disagreement between
what I have said and what HPB says. She is talking about
Hindu Tantricism and says nothing anywhere at all about
Buddhist Tantricism (she was clearly "forbidden" to talk about
this subject because of its sexual implications). She carefully
says Tantras and Trantrikas and never ever distinguishes
between the Hindu and the Buddhist, even though she had to
have known.


>Instead of seeking for accord and understanding you seem to me to
>be contentious, as though that would in some way clear the air.
>It does not.
>
Sorry. I don't mean to be. You are welcome to your view, as I am
to mine. The vast majority of folks don't much care one way or
the other anyway. But I have studied Tibetan Tantricism for over
30 years as well as practicing it, and I can't help but getting a
bit defensive when I hear it equated to the Hindu version and
hear its practitioners (who include HH the Dali Lama) being
called selfish.


>It merely shows that you have trusted, and now trust, a certain
>line of thinking or of definition, and I try to see in yours
>something which will bridge the gap you seem so aware of.  I am
>not trying to prove you wrong.  But I am trying to show that
>Theosophy is far broader based than any one of the various
>systems that are being studied.

But I kind of agree with you else I probably would have joined
another group. But is the teaching that Tibetan Tantricism is
only practiced by selfish ego-centered magicans looking to
enhance their magical powers a Theosophical teaching? You
seem to think so. If so, then I quit.


> It is neither dogmatic nor is it
>sectarian.  I would not say to your face ( as you have to mine)
>you err.  I would say, "You may be mistaken !"
>

Well, we all tend to say such things, but what I really mean
is that I disagree with what you are saying. Please don't
ever take anything I say personally. I never intend it to be
taken personally. I usually don't perceive postings from
others, you included, personally either. But I do enjoy
a lively discussion on theosophical topics.


>However I am sorry that you seem to fail to provide me with some
>evidence of what you hold to be correct.  You merely say "You (I)
>am wring!"  To say the best, that is quite unhelpful.
>
>

OK, fair enough. I did post one quote the other day. Here is
another:

"Dwelling deep within our heart, and within the hearts of
all beings without exception, is an inexhaustible source
of love and wisdom. And the ultimate purpose of all
spiritual practices, whether they are called buddhist or
not, is to uncover and make contact with this
essentially pure nature." (p 14).

This quote, which could have been written by HPB,
was written by Lama Yeshe in his INTRODUCTION
TO TANTRA. As a Buddhist Lama, he is obviously
writing about Tibetan Tantricism, and not the Hindu.
If I get the time, I could post lots more of the same,
and from lots of authors.

Jerry S.