Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00259)

Rich,

I was planning to answer Leon's and Dallas' latest comments but you have answered
them so well that I need only say that I agree 100% with your reply below.

In the very near future, I will be responding to your recents posts on "The
Theosophical Glossary" and "Yellow Hats versus Red Hats."

Dan

Richtay@aol.com wrote:

> 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