Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00261)

In a message dated 12/26/98 5:10:37 PM, Reed Carson wrote:

<<Don't we have to leave open the possibility that the teachings of Tsong Kha

Pa we have are his exoteric teachings and the esoteric teachings of his are

in complete agreement with Theosophy?  This resolution of the seeming

problem is admittedly disatisfying.  It feels of the nature of an

intellectual cop-out.  Nevertheless it is probably likely that we have the

exoteric and not the esoteric. And yes, this shows an inherent problem in

applying the academic material to the issue.>>

Reed, absolutely.  I do *not* want to go on record saying that HPB or her
teachers don't know what they are talking about.  Rather, I am pointing up
mysteries that truly deserve intense investigation.  Yes, I also agree to the
limits of academic investigation -- but I don't think we've exhausted that
route yet.

There are many attitudes and teachings HPB gives out that DO agree with
Gelugpa tradition, for instance a great emphasis on celibacy and a strong
focus on the monastic and scholarly tradition.  All records of Theosophical
chelas indicate strict chastity was demanded.  Other Theosophical teachings,
however, seem to directly contradict Gelugpa tradition, like the teaching of
Atman, or any kind of eternal essence.  Again, Gelugpas emphasize Madhyamika
doctrines, while HPB calls them (in general) the great nihilists of Buddhism,
while she (mostly) supports Yogacara positions.  It is entirely possible that
esoteric Gelugpa texts will end up supporting HPB.  But I must point out that
much of what we now have on Tibetan Buddhism, for instance Dzogchen and most
of the Tantras, were last century highly esoteric.  They have just been
released from secrecy in the last 20 years in some cases.  And it is the
(formerly) esoteric writings of the Nyingma and especially Dzogchen which so
far come closest to HPB's position.  See the new books THE PRACTICE OF
DZOGCHEN by Lonchen Rabjam for much of the Theosophical doctrines on cosmology
in Tibetan Buddhism.

I freely admit, however, that the whole picture hasn't come into focus yet,
and I don't want people to think I am throwing stones or tearing down HPB.  I
am merely pursuing the second object of the original Society.


<<However, let me say I am greatly in favor of the discussion raised

concerning the sects of Buddhism as they may appear to contradict HPB.  I

think it is important to take the facts as we can obtain them as far as they

go on the issue.>>

Yes.  And in many cases, the new information being obtained on Tibetan and
other Buddhism *SUPPORTS* HPB and her Teachers.  Last century scholars
universally regarded Tibetan (or according to HPB, Bhutanese) Buddhism as
corrupt, phallic, and greatly below southern (Theravada) Buddhism.  Today
among scholars that position is almost totally reversed.  HPB was more than a
century ahead of the times.  This gives us one more good reason to take her
comments very seriously indeed, and worthy of the utmost respect -- but not
blind faith.


<<BTW, I have picked up somewhere that "Jonangpas" means "insiders".  That is

tempting.  Would there be any more information on the meaning of the term

"Jonangpa"?>>

According to the Tibetan-English dictionary by Chandra Das, under JO-NANG (PA
is merely a noun-making suffix) we find:

"JO-NANG or JO-MO-NANG, name of a place with a lofty Chorten [Pagoda] and a
convent situated about 100 miles to the North West of Tashilhunpo; the place
where Phyogs-las Rnam-rgyal [pronounced Choklay Namgyel] the founder of the
Jonang-pa sect was born, and whence the name Jonang-pa was derived."

If there is another meaning of Jonangpa, I don't know it.  I meet with my
Tibetan Buddhist professor in a few days, and I will add that to my list of
questions.

As for the Heart Doctrine, I don't see why that can't be discussed also -- but
not by way of terminating all other discussions.

Rich