Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00145)

Dec 10th 1998

Dear Rich:

I believe I understand your problem.

HPB did not write as one might if she were going to dispute with
a learned orientalist/specialist and hew to a single line of
translation, or remain focused on a single line of
philosophical/religious sources.  She used the best approaches to
the Truth, that Theosophy claims to be custodian of, from any
system.  And, Buddhism was a reform of Hinduism and a
popularization of those aspects of wisdom which the Brahmins had
too long sequestered.

She wrote as one (and apparently the Masters also, who wrote with
and through her) who was only interested in pointing to some
truth that originated in THEOSOPHY as the ESOTERIC WISDOM, and
which was later distorted by copiers, commentators, theologians,
and finally by more modern translators.  Those text have passed
through too many hands and minds to be true to the originals.
She and They desired to restore the confusion to its prime
simplicity and exactness.  I do not think that we can say that
they are more accurate than those who have preceded them.  There
are variances in the texts from which translations have been
made.  Each translator is of necessity a filter, as they try to
give an accurate rendering of not only the literal words used,
but of the ideas that lie behind those words.  And that is the
most difficult of all - to be accurate and fair to the original
authors' mind.  And that gives latitude for a lot of criticism.

Of course anyone who has studied the way in which modern
criticism is framed will be in despair, because HPB is not
consistent with the criteria of the academies.

She never wrote for them, she wrote for the educated and the
inquirers who wanted to find out what THEOSOPHY taught.  She
wrote for many who would come and study what she offered, and
especially for those who wanted to get behind the literal
meaning.  And this is why, I believe, she dwelt on the
metaphysical propositions again and again.

And she also wrote for those who desired to get back of the
literal approach to the eclectic and intuitional approach.

Now if you can work on reconciling that you will really serve all
of us as well as the academies.  But I don't think you will
un-frustrate yourself if you ever hope to put HPB in an academic
context.

I wonder if this is helpful to you.  But I think you already know
this well.  It is a very deep problem, and one with which I
wrestled for a long time, until I arrived at what I try to convey
above.

As to the disputes and the acerbity - it is useless and
fruitless, and makes no philosophy comprehensible.  If one has a
good point it need only be exposed clearly.  And, by the way,
that is what I think HPB was trying to do, but on a very broad
scale indeed.  None of us know enough to cover more than a small
portion of what she offers, with the little knowledge that we
have been able to glean in this life-time.  And then thee will be
an interlude of some 1500 years till next incarnation !  What
will the SD sound like then ?


I agree with you that HPB did not want nor expect any kind of
slavish acceptance of her say-so.  She says so many times that
each is expected to study and to think and to learn how to
correlate the many scattered fragments of truth that have
filtered down to us through the fragments and scraps of
literature we have access to.  I quote her, because, (I think) I
understand what she is driving at.  I also quote her because most
who contribute to these exchanges do not know what she says on
various things, and I think they ought to be able to read and
then hunt up some more things and verify for themselves.

You are quite right that to "accept" is not learning.  One is
then exchanging one set of "beliefs" for another, and, without
thinking about them.

Best wishes,

Dallas

> From: "Richard Taylor" <richtay@aol.com>
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 09, 1998 4:41 PM
> Subject: A Response to theosophical put downs

As tiring as the endless insult trading has become (and I delete
most of it
after reading only a few lines) there is a real issue here which
few
Theosophists have yet grappled with, because it requires not only
a solid
grasp of Theosophical teachings, but a thorough exposure to the
very Eastern
books that HPB points to in her works.

Most good Theosophists have read the Voice of the Silence, but
have never read
a Buddhist work translated from Sanskrit or Tibetan by anyone
other than HPB.
Those who do so quickly come to the realization that there are
major
contradictions between different things HPB teaches, and between
her and
Eastern teachings.

These contradictions are not, presumably, finally insoluble, but
present a
great hurdle for anyone who reads and appreciates Eastern wisdom,
as HPB
taught us to.

If I may just briefly lay out a few of these major
contradictions:

*  HPB seems to indicate that Buddhism is the highest *exoteric*
religion on
the planet at the current time.  She uses Buddhist words and
phrases, quotes
Buddhist teachers like Aryasangha, Vasubandhu, Tsong Kh Pa, etc.
Yet HPB
introduces the distinctly un-Buddhist idea of atman.  99.9% of
all Budhists,
including the very teachers she quotes, are horrified that the
very "self"
which the Lord Buddha strove so hard to dispose of would be
reintroduced under
atman.  Many of them speak out directly against atman in their
published
writings.  Tsong Kha Pa himself (supposedly the Lord Buddha
incarnate) writes
very disparagingly against the atma-view, as Gautama Buddha does
in ALL the
Pali records.  This is a major stumbling block for Buddhists
accepting
Theosophy.

*When HPB uses foreign terms, she often uses them in her own
unique way, which
makes it extremely difficult for those native from such
traditions to trust
her.  She lists the 7 perfections of wisdom in her Voice of the
Silence, when
in all known Buddhists lists there are only 6 perfections, as she
herself
states in a footnote.  She has added a fourth of seven, "Viraga,"
for reasons
known only to herself.

*  HPB makes vast generalizations that are impossible to
substantiate.  For
instance, she calls the Yellow Hats "good" and the Red Hats "bad"
in Tibetan
Buddhism.  When I first entered into Tibetan studies I took her
very view and
got into lots of trouble.  First of all, most Tibetan teachers
follow more
than one practice.  Like the Dalai Lama, they belong to (or lead)
the revered
Gelugpa sect founded by Tsong Kha Pa, yet take teachings from the
older
schools of Tibet, namely the "red hats."  The Tibetans themselves
hold no
prejudices between the two schools, and rarely make a
distinction.  Many of
the most respected, altruistic bodhisattva teachers belong to
"Red Hat"
lineages, namely Nyingma, Sakyapa and Kargyupa.  Having spoken
with a few of
these teachers (not that I have such amazing insight) I felt no
trace of evil,
no trace of selfishness.  They are as involved as their Yellow
Hat
counterparts in saving Tibetan culture, spreading the very same
words of the
Buddha.  Besides, as stated, many teachers belong to more than
one school, so
they are BOTH Red Hats and Yellow Hats simultaneously.

I could go on but time presses.  None of this, to my mind,
invalidates
Theosophy, and I do not post this as any kind of a slam towards
HPB.  We all
knew she was mysterious and the teachings of Theosophy difficult
from the
start.  But we really *must* caution ourselves against blind,
slavish devotion
to her words, without checking them out for ourselves.  She would
never had
wanted our unquestioning assent.  The problems she poses, and the
contradictions she speaks, beg for investigation, not riding
roughshod over
each other for taking different viewpoints.  Jerry Schueler
appears to speak
more for the native Buddhist view of things (mostly correctly, in
my humble
view) while Leon and others take a mostly native Theosophist
point of view
(again, mostly correctly, I suspect.)

So why then are we calling each other evil, fallen, ignorant,
etc.?  In a
search for truth, different vantagepoints are opportunities to
better scale
the mountain, not pull each other down.

Rich Taylor

theos-talk@theosophy.com

of