Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00312)

Paul writes:
>It should come as no surprise that I find Mark persuasive in his
>replies to Tony about "verified by generations of seers" as well
>as "dugpas" trying to mislead us with our "evil genius."  Some
>comments about what is myth and what is history in the former
>case:  Sure, it's true that from the dawn of humanity people have
>been experiencing inner planes, psychic phenomena, what have you,
>and recording their experiences, and comparing notes, and trying
>to come to some consensus about it.  Also true that some people
>have stood out for the relative mastery of these realms and been
>recognized for this in a wide variety of cultures. And it's also true that HPB
>presents a truly global picture of the collective wisdom of
>humanity, probably the first person to really synthesize a
>planetary spirituality.  And it is also true that in tracing
>parallel doctrines and symbols, she makes a strong case for
>viewing occultism from a global perspective and seeing some
>overall continuity in it, and some evolutionary progress.
>
>Where the myth comes in is with the confusion of different levels
>of meaning.  To think that the specific doctrines of the SD or
>the Mahatma letters *are* what has been "verified by generations
>of seers"; that there really is an ancient language called
>Senzar in which the Stanzas of Dzyan are written; that there are
>libraries buried in caves which contain records many thousands of
>years old all of which precisely confirm HPB's version of
>cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis-- all this is to think
>mythically rather than historically.

Mythically, which means a fiction?
You mentioned about Theosophy and "Theosophy" in another mail.  Why should
it in this case be so difficult to grasp that "The Secret Doctine" in its
physical body, so to put it, is a book, but that there are 6 other basic
levels to it.  It would be far more understandable if you said the myth is
that "The Secret Doctrine" is a book.  In a sense that is the myth.  To see
it as paper and glue (as you sympathise with Mark - perhaps you don't in
this) is only looking at the outside.  The illumination must come from
within.  Why see the libraries and caves as a physical thing in the ground
or rock somewhere - in some sort of way it is the so called historical track
which so easily can become (or is) myth, because it tends to plod along on
the outside. It is the historical stuff which becomes a book.  Crystalized.
It is so interesting, if for no other reason, than of just seeing the same
thing in an opposite way.  Relatively speaking, is the history the fact, or
the myth?  Is Atma fact, or fiction?


>Commenting on the dugpa issue, here is one real lollapalooza of a
>mistaken interpretation of Tibetan religion.  Ask the DL or any
>Tibetan or any scholar of Tibetan religion if there's any basis
>for regarding the red hat sects, the Nyingmapa, the Kargyutpa, as
>a band of evil black magicians out to mislead and destroy.  Ask
>if there's the slightest historical basis for the Gelugpa having
>such a view, and they will tell you absolutely not.

In the magazine section of "The Sunday Times" within the last month there is
an article about the Dalai Lama and the Dorje Shugden issue: "Trouble in
Nirvana."  To quote from it: ".....In the simplest terms, Shugden's
followers consider themselves guardians of Tibetan Buddhism.  Members of
their branch of the faith (there are four in Tibetan Buddhism) are known to
the gelugs, or Yellow Hats.  Part of the conflict lies in the fact that they
believe that the Dalai Lama (who is also a Gelug, but who, as spiritual and
political leader of Tibet, attempts to befriend all four branches) is a
traitor because he is promoting dialogue with another major branch, the
Niyingma, or Red Hats.  The Shugden believe that even talking to a Nyingma,
let alone touching one of their religious works, is a sin. It is believed
that Lobsang Gyato was a very active intermediary between the Red Hats and
the Yellow Hats.  Hence the murder investigation (of Lobsang Gyatso)......"
It seems to have some relevance to what you are saying above.  The article
seems to be along the same lines as the one David Green quotes from.

The reference to the Niyingma certainly evokes the Tibetan word gdug-pa (and
gdug-ma for that matter).

As you seem to be up in this subject, do you know of anywhere where HPB
refers to "The Tibetan Book of the Dead?"  Have never found a reference by
her to it, but she does refer to "The Egyptian Book of the Dead," several times.


>
>If one wishes for whatever reason to accept the fear messages
>about a band of evil black magicians (which are to me a big blot on HPB's
>record and a terrible legacy that has wrought havoc in the
>Theosophical movement) then one can do so.  But to tie this in to
>the venerable lineages of the pre-reformation Tibetan Buddhism is
>unconscionable.

Why see it as fear, rather than as very good advice?  Not to see or the
ignorance of their existence would seem to be the more fearful if that word
has to be used.  It seems to be rather more, or rather different, than an
evil band of black magicians.  Are you seeing the pre-reformation as
pre-Tsong-ka-pa?

Anyway, that is it Paul.

Tony