Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00255)

Dallas,

Thank you for your thoughtful, thorough, and clear statement respective of the
defense of HPB, the meaning of theosophy, and the meaninglessness of the
continued discussion of exoteric Buddhist philosophies and practices that have
no relation to the motives behind the teachings of theosophy.  This reflects
my own views as stated in my recent posts--and I am grateful for your apparent
support of the position that such discussion is both meaningless and
deflective of HPB's true intents and purposes, and has no place in serious
discussions of theosophy--which is rooted in the Heart Doctrine, and is
designed to give us the tools to help Humanity lift itself from the darkness,
pain an suffering engendered by its dominent beliefs and practices (supported
by its organized religions and  governments) of selfish materialism.

Leon
---------------------------------------------
In a message dated 12/24/98 3:10:54 PM, you wrote:

>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 not 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 i
>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
>