Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00247)

Dec 23rd

Dear Richard:

On p. 319 of THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (HPB) she distinguishes
clearly between the CEREMONIES, RITES and RITUALS of the
Dakshinacharis and the Vamanacharis --  the devotees of the RIGHT
and the LEFT HAND Paths.

If the teachings of THEOSOPHY are considered as the metaphysics
which underlie as facts, philosophy and logic the operations of
LAW in our world and Universe, then there is only one difference
between the two:  motive.  That is our choice of a REASON for our
own practice and application.  WHAT KIND OF A GOAL ARE WE
CHOOSING FOR OURSELVES ?  When do we expect to achieve it?  If
achieved, for how long?  And will it be accessible to us next
incarnation ?

The ability to discriminate is always the problem of the
student - you and me.

Personally, I think you may have erred in thinking that the
MAHATMAS and HPB are concerned with the external appearances of
individuals, and the way in which they behave, teach, etc...

They are concerned with the help that can be given to those who
are interested in the HEART DOCTRINE - no more, no less.

Their help can be invoked by the devotee's purity of motive and
aspiration, not by delving into the intricacies of the EYE
DOCTRINES and outward arguments and ceremonies, etc...

For each of us the choice is individual - it is not stereotyped
in any way.  Clear ?

And, that is as I see it.

Dallas TenBroeck

> From: "Richard Taylor" <richtay@aol.com>
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 23, 1998 1:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Leon on Yellow Hats versus Red Hats

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

theos-talk@theosophy.com

of