Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00249)

In a message dated 12/23/98 6:41:13 PM, Daniel quoted the well-respected
Buddhologist Stephen Batchelor:

<<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.>>

Dan, this is a fantastic quote.  I stand by what I wrote, to which you are
responding, respecting Red and Yellow Hats.  But this quote suggests just the
opposite of what some Theosophists (i.e., Dallas) may wish to prove.  In the
above quote (and plenty more can be garnered, by you or me) it is the NYINGMA
("Red Hat") view that corresponds most closely to HPB's presentation of the
first fundamental proposition, and not the GELUGPA ("Yellow Hat") position
phrased by Tasong-Kha-Pa.

Again, Dan quotes,

<<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>>

This is quite true.  How then to account for the fact that several letters
allegedly from the Mahatmas place the "Dugpas" in Bhutan, which as I have
stated, is the stronghold of the Bonpos.  Are the Dugpas the same as the Red
Hats, according to the Mahatmas Letters?  Or do we have two entirely different
Dark Brotherhoods struggling for power against the ever-pure Gelugpas, who
apparently don't accept the first fundamental proposition of the S.D. at all??

This is a very knotty problem indeed, and Daniel's quotes only go to show how
valid my position is, that the tradition Theosophical interpretation of Red
Hats, bad, Yellow Hats, good, is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Neither of these
"schools" constitute a Dark or Light Brotherhood, at war with each other
spiritually.

I will also add another little piece, that while the Jonangpa lineage of
Tibetan Buddhism may be a possible source for HPB's teachings and/or Teachers,
I would suggest that the Dzogchen school is the closest we've yet come to
Theosophical teachings in Tibet.  STRICTLY speaking, the Dzogchen school is
not Nyingma, but only housed by them.  According to Lama Namkhai Norbu (who
received the golden pen from the current Dalai Lama) in THE CRYSTAL AND THE
WAY OF LIGHT, Dzogchen predates Buddhism altogether (Tibetan or otherwise) and
originates from a hierarchy of teachers not originally from this planet.  (HPB
makes similar claims for the origin of Theosophical teachings.)

Finally, Dan quotes,

<<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 Dzogchen as a return to the Hindu ideas that Buddhists
resisted in India. . .>>

But this Dzogchen "return" is *exactly* what HPB is teaching.  She even uses
Hindu terms like atman, antaskarana, mayavi-rupa, linga-sharira, etc.  HPB is
clearly drawing from Advaita Vedanta terminology, if not philosophy, and this
syncs beautifully with Yogacara, Jonangpa, and above all DZOGCHEN teachings.
But it militates DIRECTLY against Gelugpa/Tsong Kha Pa/Yellow Hat teachings.

How will Theosophists explain this contradiction, given that HPB calls Tsong
Kha Pa the reincarnated Lord Buddha, and the highest Adept on the planet in
our cycle?

Thanks for the quotes, Dan.  I need to get some of those sources which I don't
own.

Rich