Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00251)

Dec 24th 1998

Dear Richard:

We seem to be writing at cross purposes.  I am seeking for
meaning and content.  I am not seeking for sources that I can
quote or opinions concerning persons or sects, schools, etc...

I am not aiming to discuss this on the purely hard, cold and
"lower-manasic" level of academic exchanges based on exoteric
analysis and cataloging of works, authorship, sects, or words.

I am trying to speak of IDEAS and PRINCIPLES which lead to
delving into the motives of any or all writers.  As I read and
understand Theosophy and HPB's method she does this constantly
and is the despair of the "academic."  She writes of the inner
meaning of things - of the way in which people are affected by
the ideas they contact through words - and then may, or may not,
adopt for their use themselves.  I am grateful to her for the
"warnings" she offers.  And I try to take those into account.

I say that, in general, all words can be made into "traps" of a
kind (including mine), for the reason that they do not clearly
convey the original motive of the writer, nor necessarily, and
especially in translation, the actual MEANINGS.  [ Do you recall
how Kippling in "IF" describes
the use of word one utters, being used "by knaves to make a trap
for fools ?" ]

Of what value are any teachings, Theosophy included, if they do
not elevate the mind and direct it towards universals, and the
improvement of humanity - Brotherhood is fact and action and
thought.  Also, the most important question, as I see it, do they
become of real assistance to the reader?  Do they give him the
"freedom" to think and decide for himself, or do they seek to
"forcibly convert and convince ?"  I am looking for the "Doctrine
of the Heart" and am not distracted (if I can help it) by the
claims based on externalities - name, position, claims,
scholarship, sect, etc...  all "labels" whose sole value is speed
in cataloguing.

I am not trying to characterize anyone, or even "Tibetan
Buddhism" of whatever "School."
Nor do I believe that the writings or statements made by any one
writer/thinker depends on the clothes he may wear, or the sect he
may be said to espouse, or the position in scholarship that he
may be said to have. or claim - which are all purely external
(doctrine of the EYE).  WHAT IS THE REAL VALUE OF THE WORDS HE
USES TO ADVANCE "IDEAS."  The names, titles, etc... are to me of
no value at all - it is the inner aim of the person that has
continuing meaning.  Scholarly stuff can be relegated to the
Library shelves of Universities.  The living words are either
spoken, poeticized, or reduced to that kind of simplicity that
attracts the free "soul" of the seeker.  They build, they do not
fetter.

I am focusing, as I understand THEOSOPHY does, on the motives and
nature of the ideas offered/considered/etc....  What I mean: are
they true, fair, helpful for actual individual "spiritual"
advancement - or are they confusing and aimed at some "personal"
advantage or other.

I am seeking to find if those teachings are "theosophical" in
character or not.  I am not concerned with how anyone who claims
to be an authority may designate themselves, or even how he may
be catalogued by "scholarship."

What I am trying to say is that in the statements that HPB makes
concerning MAHAYANA BUDDHISM and TRANS-HIMALAYAN ESOTERICISM she
is not confining herself to the "academic" definitions that are
commonly used or accepted in scholarly circles.  If one is
familiar with her writings this is made clear all throughout
those writings.

When she makes a statement, she makes it from the point of view
of the Theosophy that has been preserved in the Lodge of the
Masters.  They belong to no external "school, sect. Caste, race,
color - and the color of their head-gear or clothes is
irrelevant.  Their records show evidence of continued verity and
record of facts - as history, in events and ideas.  What will you
trust?
If at the time that HPB wrote ISIS and the S D, it was relevant
to speak of the divisions of Tibetan "Buddhism" ( or was it
"bodhism" ? as "Red Caps" and "Yellow Caps" it was because those
external attributes distinguished (as I understand it) the
difference between those Tibetan" monks/schools (etc.), who were
either interested in Tantrikaism (as formalisms) or in
esotericism (as the search for TRUTH).  She also stated that most
European writers could not make that distinction - and apparently
the inability continues.  Is it because Theosophy is not
understood or considered to be adequately "authoritative" to use
as a basis for study ?
Suffice it to say:  the "Heart Doctrine" is to be discovered
within any exoteric writings.
Personally I find that Theosophy is eclectic enough to show, if
not to open, doors and windows that give insights on the "heart"
doctrine, ( or, what I fancy it is ).
I however echo HPB's warning about "Tantraism" for what it is
worth.  Each one makes his own decisions.  If there is to be any
"defense" let it be on the basis of the teachings and not on
interpretations.
Best wishes to you,

Dallas

> From: "Richard Taylor" <richtay@aol.com>
> Sent:	Thursday, December 24, 1998 2:14 AM
> Subject: The Glossary again

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

theos-talk@theosophy.com

of