Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00258)

In a message dated 12/25/98 12:35:18 AM, Leon wrote:

<<The only thing I have to say about this opinionated discussion of Tibetan
practices and beliefs (hoping to end it in this public theosophical forum once
and for all) is that HPB was professed to be a Gelugpa Buddhist (as are many
of her students) and that it was the Dalai Lama who wrote a dedication, on her
behalf, to the Voice of the Silence.>>

Leon, thanks for your clarification as to your motives and interests.  I must
point out, however, that you have contributed a very great deal on Tibetan
practice and ideas.  Your writings are also, in my opinion, quite opinionated.
Which is fine.  They are your opinions, and clearly labelled.  Your motive may
be to direct attention to Theosophy, but you have also entered the
conversation on a purely Buddhist-practice level.

I am surprised by your interest in terminating this discussion.  I wasn't
aware that you wished to become modetator of this list and assess what is and
isn't worthy of the attention of Theosophists.  The current discussion of
Tibetan practice falls squarely under the second object of the T.S.  The ULT,
in its many innovations, may have left this object by the wayside, but Mr.
Judge, with his Oriental Department and interest in collecting original
Sanskrit manuscripts, did not.  If such a topic bores you or repels you, why
not ignore it?  Why not start a discussion on a topic that interests you?  I
promise not to criticize your choice.

You may feel that all this discussion is a distraction; I do not.  HPB makes
definite claims not only about Theosophy, but about the Buddhists and
Vedantins and others: their beliefs, their practices, their history, their
inter-relationships.  These claims can and should be investigated, evaluated,
and defended if warranted.  In this way, Theosophy can be protected from its
attackers and justified to inquirers.  Many Theosophists may not need such
justification, but many (like myself) indeed do.  If pure spiritual intuition
were enough for everyone, the Secret Doctrine wouldn't have any footnotes.

As to your statement quoted above, you have again gotten yourself into trouble
by making claims that are hard to validate.  Where indeed does HPB profess
that she is a Gelugpa Buddhist?  And if that is in fact true, why does she
hand out teachings like Atman, Sutratman, etc., which go directly against
Gelugpa teachings, but support Hindu and Dzogchen ideas?  You can make all the
assertions you want, but they will influence few unless you can give at least
some small indication as to why you think so.  You may indeed have a library
chock full of indexes and notes, but this work is helpful to you alone (i.e.,
selfish) if it provides no help to others than bald assertions.  HPB disdained
to work this way, and moved heaven and earth to provide truly incredible
references to skeptical inquirers in ISIS and the SECRET DOCTRINE.  I myself
am a Theosophist only because she did this, and I was able to verify much of
what she wrote.

Dallas is certainly right in asserting that HPB uses terms and ideas in her
own Esoteric way, and she does not need our approval or anyone else's to do
so.  However, when you label her as actually a member of a sect, and she
exhibits behavior and ideas that contradict that sect, I am moved to question
and ask for proof of your assertion.  Where does Theosophy laud Gelugpa
doctrines and motives?  And why do Theosophical teachings in some cases
directly contradict known writings of Tsong Kha Pa, founder and leader of the
Gelugpa sect?

Rich