Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00250)

In a message dated 12/24/98 1:20:38 AM, Dallas wrote:

<<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 ?>>

Dallas, what you write is always admirably clear, and useful.  In this case it
is not, however, relevant.  The subject is *not* how the Masters give help to
deserving students, or whether we personally should condemn all members of a
certain sect.  Rather the subject is the comments made in the Mahatma Letters
and elsewhere regarding the evilness of the Red Hat sect, calling them Dugpas
(literally "poisonous") etc.

Members of this list, including me, Leon, Jerry S., Daniel Caldwell and
others, are trying to sort out the differences between Theosophy and various
schools of Tibetan Buddhism.  The similarities are there and cannot be denied.
There are also profound differences, and understanding these differences could
be of tremendous help both to current Theosophists and to Buddhists
(especially scholars) who poo-poo Theosophy.

Under the second object of the original Theosophical Society, founded
principally by HPB, it is important to compare and contrast Theosophy as given
by HPB with other known traditions.

No one on this list has yet addressed my assertion that by "Red Hat" and
"Dugpa" HPB and the Mahatmas probably referred to the Bonpos, practitioners of
(pre-Buddhist) indigenous Tibetan religion who do indeed rely on rites and
teachings that would seem to many Theosophists grossly magical, phallic and
base.  I have given ample evidence, corroborated by Daniel's quotes from
various excellent sources, that HPB's teachings are much more aligned with Red
Hat Buddhism in Tibet than Yellow Hat, so it makes no sense why she would slam
the Red Hats as modern scholars understand the term.  Rather, we should reach
for an understanding that reconciles both Theosophy AND the actual Tibetan
situation.

As further proof of my identification of Red Hats with Bonpos, I quote from
the Glossary, which in this case is right on target:

p. 321., "TASSISSUDUN: (Tibetan): Literally, "the holy city of the doctrine";
inhabited, nevertheless, by more Dugpas than Saints.  It is the residential
capital in BHUTAN [Nota Bene] of the ecclesiastical Head of the Bhons-- the
Dharma Raja.  The latter, though professedly a Northern Buddhist, is simply a
worshipper of the old demon-gods of the aborigines [of Tibet], the nature-
sprites or elementals, worshipped in the land before the introduction of
Buddhism.  All strangers are [were] prevented from penetrating into Eastern or
Great Tibet, and the few scholars who venture on their travels into those
forbidden regions, are permitted to penetrate no further than the border lands
of the land of Bod [Tibet].  They journey about Bhutan, Sikkhim, and elsewhere
on the frontiers of the country, but can learn or know nothing of true Tibet;
hence, nothing of the true Northern Buddhism or Lamaism of Tsong-Kha-Pa.  And
yet, while describing no more than the rites and beliefs of the Bhons [Bonpos]
and the travelling shamans, they assure the world they are giving it the pure
Northern Buddhism, and comment on its great fall from its pristine purity
[compared to the Southern schools, or Theravada Buddhism]."

This states pretty clearly that the Dugpas are the Bonpos in Bhutan and
Sikkhim.  Next I will look for a quote that identifies the Dugpas with the Red
Hat sect in Tibet, and it will be a virtual syllogism.  Bonpos = Dugpas = Red
Hats.  (Then we can leave the poor Nyingmas and other Tibetan Buddhists alone
and quit calling them evil sorcerors on Theosophical authority.)

*********************************

More on the reliability of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY

Nearly every page has problems, it seems.  Having read the above article on
Tassissudun, I glanced at the article TATHAGATA, "One who is like the coming."
There is absolutely no linguistic basis for this translation.  There are lists
in Buddhist works giving up to eight translations for the term Tathagata --
none like the above.  HPB may want to give her own spin to this extremely
well-established term in Buddhism, but she doesn't even give out the popular
definition, so the reader thinks that "One who is like the coming" is the
actual meaning among Buddhists.  Rather, TATHAGATA is universally accepted by
Buddhists as meaning either "The Thus-Gone One" (one who has gone to Thusness,
Nirvana) or else "The Thus-Come One" (one who has come from Thusness, or
Nirvana.)  Tathagata means "that, thus, such" and gata, from the Sanskrit root
GAM, to go, means either "come" or "gone."  TATHAGATA refers to *all* perfect
Buddhas, and not, as the Glossary states, merely to Lord Gautama Buddha.
Amitabha, Dipankara, Akshobhya, and many other Buddhas are also referred to as
TATHAGATA.

Only a page later, we find TCHAITYA, spelled in Russian style.  The term is
CHAITYA and refers not to "a locality made sacred through some event in the
life of the Buddha" (there are only four major pilgrimage sites for Buddhists)
but simply to a stupa, a domed-base, pointy-top burial mound, with many
symbolic features and usually Mahayana Buddhist scriptures buried inside.
King Ashoka is said to have built 84,000 of them, although this is surely
greatly exaggerated.  The word Chaitya proceeds from the Sanskrit "Citta"
(mind, consciousness) and so Chaitya means "remembrance" (of the Buddha), a
sculpture built to remind passersby that the Buddha lived, and the nature of
his teachings.

Next, there is THSANG THISRONG TSAN. (Actually spelled in Tibetan "Khri srong
lde brstan," but HPB apparently chose phonetic spelling above accuracy, which
is understandable.)  She gives the dates for this king's rule of Tibet as
728-787, when modern scholarship has pretty well established his reign as
756-797.  It is this king who first truly established Buddhism in Tibet and
built the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet, called bSamyas (phonetically,
"Samye")

The Glossary's scholarship is pretty darn good, especiallu for last century.
I don't mean to trash the whole volume.  I am merely trying to prove that it
is not entirely accurate, and not to be trusted independently of other
reference sources (including those OUTSIDE the Theosophical "Canon.")

Rich