Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00235)

May 10th 1998

Dear Jerry:

While I am in general agreement with what you say and write, I
find it somewhat jarring to read your statements like "HPB was
wrong about..." or "You are wrong about ..."  Do you really think
you know more than HPB or the Masters ?  I would call that
extreme rashness.

You are certainly entitled to trust your own studies and
conclusions, but there is always an element of doubt, that one
does not know everything.  I may be learned in some aspects of
Theosophy, but am certainly far more ignorant about many others.

But I do no accuse you of being wrong.  I would rather say that
you may be mistaken.  and I have said this.  Ask yourself if you
cannot modify your pronouncements to a more accurate: "My
opinion, based on ...... are ---so and so ---  What are and where
are your references ? ...is what I suggest. "

You need not heed my request or adopt my format, but for your own
sake, should you be incorrect, what will you do when so
confronted ?  You have "stuck your neck out."  But, have not
reserved for yourself any "safety valve." and you do appear to be
very "authoritarian."  No one is questioning your work.  But
everyone knows that no one knows everything !

This  is not meant to offend, but simply to caution,
Dallas

> Date: Saturday, May 09, 1998 3:02 PM
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Dangers of psychism Nirmanakaya, Turiya, etc./


>>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.