Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00244)

SUBJECT:  Rich on the Yellow Hats versus the Red Hats

PART I

Rich, thanks for your comments below.  I append AFTER your comments some
interesting material.

Daniel


Richtay@aol.com wrote:

> 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, much of what you say is true but I would suggest that there is
more to the
"story" than what you have written.

In Part I, I will simply quote from a variety of sources which indicate
that there are more
lights and shadows  than what appears in your "picture".

QUOTATION 1

"At first the new order [Gelukpa] won the respect of the older schools
[of Tibetan
Buddhism]. . . . However, during the lifetime of Gendun Gyatso
[1475-1542]. . .
this began to change.  The new school, with its high standards of
discipline and
scholarship, began to attract the active resentment of some of the older
orders,
which often suffered in comparison.  Gendun Gyatso's growing prestige
and the high
regard in which his school [of the Gelukpas] was held caused the Karmapa
hierarchs
and thier laypatrons to move against him. . . ."

"The attention and ceremony that he [Yonden Gyatso 1589-1617, 4th Dalai
Lama]
was shown began to arouse the
animosity of other poweful religious leaders, particulary lamas
belonging to the
Karmapa school.  Relations between the Gelukpas and the Karmapas became
further
strained when the Gyelwa Karmapa sent letters to the Dalai Lama that
were
interpreted as being insultng.  The Gelukpas replied in kind, which led
to open
antagonism between the two schools."

[Concerning the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Losang Gyatso (1617-1682)]. .
. he was
born into a Nyingmapa famly. . . [During his lifetime] members of the
Karmapa
school continued to battle the Gelukpas and their Mongol patrons.  The
Gelukpas
emerged victoriious, and the Gyelwa Karmpa was forced to flee. . . .
[The Fifth
Dalia Lama]  began a process of determining the number of monks and
monsteries
throughout the country, and in several cases he forcd members of some
orders to
convert to his own [Gelukpa] sect.  The most notable of these was the
Jonangpa
sect, whose doctrines had been judged to be heterodox by Gelukpa
scholars.  The
Dalai Lmas forced the Jonangpa montks to become Gelukpas and the seat of
the
order, Jonang Monastery, was offically declared a Gelukpa monastery. .
.  The
monks of Jonang were forbidden to teach the tenets of their own school
and had to
adopt the Gelukpa curriculum and philosophical views. . . . Although he
[the Fifth
Dalai Lama] was rather heavy-handed with the Jonangpas and the Karmapas,
his
treatment of other orders was often generous.  He was particularly
supportive of
Nyingma, and he himself was an ardent practitioner of several Nyingma
tantric
lineages. . . . "  INTRODUCTION TO TIBETAN BUDDHISM, John Powers, pp.
143-146.


QUOTATION 2

"Karmapa. . . [is] a branch of the third largest Buddhist sect in Tibet.
. . .
Several lines of reincarnating lamas developed within the Karma-pa, one
called the
ZHWA-DMAR (Red Hats) and the other the ZHWA-NAG (Black Hats), because of
their
distinctive headdress.  During the 15th to early 17 centuries, the Red
Hat branch
of the Karma-pa struggled for power in Tibet with the now predominant
Dge-lugs-pa.  The nickname Red Hats, commonly used by non-Tibetans to
apply to all
sects other than the Dge-lugs-pa (Yellow Hats), properly belongs only to
this one
subsect, the Karma-pa." THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANNICA, Micropaedia, Vol,
V, p.
714, 1976 edition.

Please note that the above word  "ZHWA-DMAR" is the word spelled
"Shammar" in THE
MAHATMA LETTERS.


QUOTATION 3

"The preceding traditions of Tibetan Buddhism are sometimes known,
FOLLOWING
CHINESE CUSTOM, as 'Red Hats' (the Black Hat Karma pa notwithstanding).
This
marks a contrast with the most recent of the Tibetan schools, Tsong kha
pa's Yellow
Hat dGe lugs pa. . . . "  MAHAYANA BUDDHISM, Paul Williams, p. 192

QUOTATION 4

"Although the Fifth Dalai Lama was a Gelugpa monk, as head of state he
carried not
only the mantle of Tsongkhapa's reformed Buddhist order but also that of
a
thousand years of Tibetan history. . . .The Nyingmapas ("Ancients") had
been
instrumental in introducing Buddhism to Tibet. . . .Throughout his life
the Fifth
Dalai Lama maintained a strong allegiance to the Nyingma school and a
mystical
rapport with its founder, Padmasambhava, who appeared to him in dreams
and
visions. . . .

The Fifth Dalai Lama's assumption of this long and complex historical
identity
would not have sat easily with the ambitions of a Gelugpa hierarchy
intent on
creating a buddhocratic state founded explicitly on the teachings of
Tsongkhapa.
It seems that this conflict led to the death of the Fifth Dalai Lama's
rival
Drakpa Gyaltsen. . . Thereafter, Dorje Shudgen was recognized by those
Gelugpas
who opposed the Dalai Lama's involvement with the Nyingma school as the
reincarnation of Drakpa Gyaltsen, who had asumed the form [Dorje
Shugden]
of a wrathful protector of the purity of Tsongkhapa's teachings. . . .

After the death of the Fifth Dalai
Lama in 1682, the controversy between these factions of the Gelugpa
school slips
into the shadows, and we hear only occasional references to Dorje
Shugden for the
next two hundred years. . . .

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama came to power at the age of nineteen in 1895.
. . He was
. . . a keen practitioner of Nyingma techings.  He had several teachers
of the
Nyingma school, practised with them in the Potala Place, and wrote
commentaries to
the Nyingmapa texts by his predecessor, the Fifth Dalai Lama.

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama's openness to the Nyingmapa was in MARKED
CONTRAST to
that of Pabongka Rinpoche, the most influential Gelugpa lama of the
time, whose
authority rivaled that of the [13th]  Dalai Lama.  Pabongka inherited
the practice of
Dorje Shugden from his mother's family, and as a young man also received

transmissions from Nyingma lamas.  After a serious illness he became
convinced
that the disease was a sign from Shugden to stop practicing Nyingma
teachings,
which he did.  . . . .

In 1973, a senior Gelugpa lama called Zemey Rinpoche published an
account of Dorje
Shugden that he had received orally from his teacher (and the [14th]
Dalai Lama's
teacher) Trijang Rinpoche.  This text recounts in detail the various
calamities
that have befallen monks and laypeople of the Gelugpa tradition who have
practiced
Nyingma teachings. . . . In each case, the illness, torture or death
incurred is
claimed to be the result of having displeased Dorje Shugden.  The
publication of
this material was condemned by the Dalai Lama, who was then engaged in
Nyingma
practices himself. . . . But the Dalai Lama's views about Dorje Shugden
began to
shift and led to his first statements discouraging the practice in 1976.
. . In
1996, he [the Dalai Lama] is quoted .... 'It has become fairly clear
that Dolgyal (ie.
Shugden) is a spirit of the dark forces.'

. . . . To establish an authentic Buddhist state on the basis of this
vision
[concerning the doctrine of emptiness], however, requires ensuring that
a correct
view of emptiness be upheld by those in power. . . .For that reason, the
Fifth
Dalai Lama's government proscribed the teachings of the Jonanapa school
which
taught that emptiness implied a transcendent absolute reality that
inherently
exists.  Texts of the Jonangpa school were confiscated and its
monasteries turned
over to the Gelugpa, to be run by gelugpa monks.  It seems other
factions in the
Gelugpa order would have liked to have taken similar measures against
the Nyingma
school.

One can understand why the Dalai Lamas would tolerate and even embrace
Nyingma
views in order to honor the historical heritage of Tibet. . . . But
however
justified such a position might be in personal or political terms, it
should not
obscure the real and potentially divisive philosophical and doctrinal
differences
that exist between the Nyingma and Gelugpa ideologies.

The Nyingma teaching of Dzogchen regards awareness (Tib. rig pa) as the
innate
self-cognizant foundation of both samsara and nirvana.  Rig pa is the
intrinsic,
uncontrived nature of mind, which a Dzongchen master is capable of
directly
pointing out to this students.  For the Nyingmapa, Dzongchen represents
the very
apogee of what the Buddha taught, WHEREAS Tsongkhapa's view of emptiness
as just a
negation of inherent existence, implying no transcendent reality, verges
on
nihilism.

For the Gelugpas, Dzogchen succumbs to the opposite extreme:  that of
delusively
clinging to something permanent and self-existent as the basis of
reality.  They
see Dzongchen as a return to the Hindu ideas that Buddhists resisted in
India. . .
.Moreover, some Kagyu and Nyingma teachers of the Rime. . . revival
movement in
eastern Tibet in the nineteenth century even began to promote a
synthesis betwen
the FORBIDDEN Jonangpa philosophy and the practice of Dzogchen.

For the followers of Shugden this is not an obscure metaphysical
disagreement, but a life-and-death struggle for truth in which the
destiny of all sentient beings is at stake.. . . Following Tsongkhapa,
the Gelugpas maintain that the only way to achieve this is to understand
nonconceptually that nothing whatsoever inherently exists.  Any residue,
however subtle, of an attachment to inherent existence works against the
Bodhisattva's aim and perpetuates the very anguish he or she seeks to
dispel.

If we strip away the veneer of this Tibetan Buddhist dispute, we are
confronted with questions that concern the very nature of the dharma and
its practice.  In the West we are fond of portraying Buddhism as a
tolerant, rational, non-dogmatic and open-minded tradition.  But how
much is this the result of liberal Western(ized) intellectuals seeking
to construct an image of Buddhism that simply confirms their own
prejudices and desires?....

Quoted from an article "Letting Daylight into Magic:  The life and times
of Dorje Shugden" by Stephen Batchelor, TRICYCLE, Spring 1998.


(continued in Part II. . . . . )