Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00243)

In a message dated 12/18/98 8:59:15 AM, Daniel wrote:

<<>If my understanding is based on correct information, then I ask Leon,
>what is truly the difference (if any) between the Gelukpas and the
>non-Gelukpa sects of Tibetan Buddhism??  The answer to this question has
>a direct bearing on much of what HPB, M and KH write on this subject.>>

The difference between these sects is largely formal, and not real (i.e.,
functional).  Yes, each major school (Nyingma, Kargyu, Sakya, and Gelug) has
some distinct teachings, and a few unique practices.  But they share a VASTLY
SIMILAR ground, in that all rely on the same Tibetan Canon of Kanjur and
Tanjur (Nyingmas add quite a few hundred texts more), the same spiritual
heritage from late Indian textual sources, and centuries of intermingling.
MANY lamas (and all of the ones I personally know) hold joint lineages.  This
would not be possible if they were widely separated.

The Dalai Lama himself, head of the Gelugpa sect, has many teachers, and has
taken many teachings from "Red Hat" schools including the oldest, Nyingma.
The Dalai Lama has given a golden pen to Tulku Namkhai Norbu, a Nyingma and
Dzogchen high lama, and practitioner of Tantra (yes, the evil Tantras again,
which most Theosophists in my sect mindlessly abhor).  The Dalai Lama told
this individual to write as much as humanly possible of the Dzogchen (Nyingma)
teachings, so they could be preserved for humanity despite the Tibetan
disaster due to China.  (I can prove this with hard evidence: quotes,
addresses and phone numbers.)  Does this sound like a war between a light and
dark brotherhood?  Gelugpa leaders (Yellow Hats) helping Nyingmas (Red Hats)
spread their spiritual/tantric teachings?

Mostly, all these schools are different because they are "lineage systems,"
meaning they take very seriously the guru-paramguru chain which HPB speaks of.
Because each lineage was founded by so-and-so great Teacher, and passed down
to his disciple, and the next and the next, these sects maintain their
distinctness through a particular representation of history.  In practical
terms, they are greatly similar.  I would compare them indeed with the present
Theosophical map of organizations.  This means, they are based on the same
beginnings, with diverging subsequent history, with much in common and some
uniqueness.

Leon, all this *is* relevant, because the Mahatmas and HPB make very hard and
fast, and very definite, statements about Red and Yellow Hat sects, making the
formerly incorrigibly evil, and equated with the Dark Brotherhood.  This is a
horrible misunderstanding in my mind, and saved by only one interpretation.
It is this: For HPB and her Teachers, "Red Hats" referred to Bonpos, or those
lamas practicing pre-Buddhist, indigenous shamanic and magically Tibetan
religion.  In no other way can I understand why They would slander wonderful
teachers in the three Red Hat denominations, who share the same texts, same
yogas, same students and same benevolent, altruistic world view as the Yellow
Hat (Gelugpa) sect.  HPB and the Masters are not stupid -- therefore I believe
They used "Red Hat" in Their own techincal, and not literal, meaning.  I have
given my concrete evidence for this statememnt before, but I will gladly
reproduce it if asked.

If the Mahatmas are found to be wrong in their assesment of Red Hats, in such
a crucial white and black situation, it throws serious doubts on Their
abilities as spiritual guides and revealers of a perennial wisdom.

Rich Taylor