Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00262)

Rich, below [appended at the very end of this email] you make a number of
interesting comments on what I had quoted from Batchelor et al, concerning the
views of the Jonangpas, etc.  I specifically quoted this material in the hope that
you or someone else would pick up on this.  BUT THE MAIN REASON FOR GIVING THE
FOUR QUOTES WAS PRIMARILY TO POINT OUT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL POST ON THIS GLOSSED
OVER THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GELUGPAS AND THE OTHER TIBETAN BUDDHIST SECTS.

Your original statement read:

"The difference between these sects is largely formal, and not real (i.e.,
functional).  Yes, each major school (Nyingma, Kargyu, Sakya, and Gelug) has
some distinct teachings, and a few unique practices.  But they share a VASTLY
SIMILAR ground, in that all rely on the same Tibetan Canon of Kanjur and
Tanjur (Nyingmas add quite a few hundred texts more), the same spiritual
heritage from late Indian textual sources, and centuries of intermingling.
MANY lamas (and all of the ones I personally know) hold joint lineages.  This
would not be possible if they were widely separated. "

"The Dalai Lama himself, head of the Gelugpa sect, has many teachers, and has
taken many teachings from "Red Hat" schools including the oldest, Nyingma.
The Dalai Lama has given a golden pen to Tulku Namkhai Norbu, a Nyingma and
Dzogchen high lama, and practitioner of Tantra (yes, the evil Tantras again,
which most Theosophists in my sect mindlessly abhor).  The Dalai Lama told
this individual to write as much as humanly possible of the Dzogchen (Nyingma)
teachings, so they could be preserved for humanity despite the Tibetan
disaster due to China.  (I can prove this with hard evidence: quotes,
addresses and phone numbers.)  Does this sound like a war between a light and
dark brotherhood? Gelugpa leaders (Yellow Hats) helping Nyingmas (Red Hats)
spread their spiritual/tantric teaching."

Yet my 4 QUOTATIONS show that there have been "ill feelings" and EVEN "strife" and
"conflict" between the Gelupkas and some of the other Tibetan Buddhist sects.
This is what was missing from your original post on the subject.

I believe we see this "conflict" reflected in what is found in THE MAHATMA LETTERS
although we must carefully ascertain what is meant by the various references to
"Red Hats", Shammars and dugpas in the letters of the Masters.

Hoping that you will address this issue BEFORE we move on to the issues of the
Jonangpas and Dzongchen, etc.  These latter issues are also very important and
need to be discussed in some detail.

Daniel


Richtay@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/23/98 6:41:13 PM, Daniel quoted the well-respected
> Buddhologist Stephen Batchelor:
>
> <<The Nyingma teaching of Dzogchen regards awareness (Tib. rig pa) as the
> innate self-cognizant foundation of both samsara and nirvana.  Rig pa is the
> intrinsic, uncontrived nature of mind, which a Dzongchen master is capable of
> directly pointing out to this students.  For the Nyingmapa, Dzongchen
> represents
> the very apogee of what the Buddha taught, WHEREAS Tsongkhapa's view of
> emptiness as just a negation of inherent existence, implying no transcendent
> reality, verges on nihilism.>>
>
> Dan, this is a fantastic quote.  I stand by what I wrote, to which you are
> responding, respecting Red and Yellow Hats.  But this quote suggests just the
> opposite of what some Theosophists (i.e., Dallas) may wish to prove.  In the
> above quote (and plenty more can be garnered, by you or me) it is the NYINGMA
> ("Red Hat") view that corresponds most closely to HPB's presentation of the
> first fundamental proposition, and not the GELUGPA ("Yellow Hat") position
> phrased by Tasong-Kha-Pa.
>
> Again, Dan quotes,
>
> <<Several lines of reincarnating lamas developed within the Karma-pa, one
> called the ZHWA-DMAR (Red Hats) and the other the ZHWA-NAG (Black Hats),
> because of their distinctive headdress.  During the 15th to early 17
> centuries, the Red Hat branch of the Karma-pa struggled for power in Tibet
> with the now predominant Dge-lugs-pa.  The nickname Red Hats, commonly used by
> non-Tibetans to apply to all sects other than the Dge-lugs-pa (Yellow Hats),
> properly belongs only to this one subsect, the Karma-pa." THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA
> BRITTANNICA>>
>
> This is quite true.  How then to account for the fact that several letters
> allegedly from the Mahatmas place the "Dugpas" in Bhutan, which as I have
> stated, is the stronghold of the Bonpos.  Are the Dugpas the same as the Red
> Hats, according to the Mahatmas Letters?  Or do we have two entirely different
> Dark Brotherhoods struggling for power against the ever-pure Gelugpas, who
> apparently don't accept the first fundamental proposition of the S.D. at all??
>
> This is a very knotty problem indeed, and Daniel's quotes only go to show how
> valid my position is, that the tradition Theosophical interpretation of Red
> Hats, bad, Yellow Hats, good, is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Neither of these
> "schools" constitute a Dark or Light Brotherhood, at war with each other
> spiritually.
>
> I will also add another little piece, that while the Jonangpa lineage of
> Tibetan Buddhism may be a possible source for HPB's teachings and/or Teachers,
> I would suggest that the Dzogchen school is the closest we've yet come to
> Theosophical teachings in Tibet.  STRICTLY speaking, the Dzogchen school is
> not Nyingma, but only housed by them.  According to Lama Namkhai Norbu (who
> received the golden pen from the current Dalai Lama) in THE CRYSTAL AND THE
> WAY OF LIGHT, Dzogchen predates Buddhism altogether (Tibetan or otherwise) and
> originates from a hierarchy of teachers not originally from this planet.  (HPB
> makes similar claims for the origin of Theosophical teachings.)
>
> Finally, Dan quotes,
>
> <<For the Gelugpas, Dzogchen succumbs to the opposite extreme:  that of
> delusively clinging to something permanent and self-existent as the basis of
> reality.  They see Dzogchen as a return to the Hindu ideas that Buddhists
> resisted in India. . .>>
>
> But this Dzogchen "return" is *exactly* what HPB is teaching.  She even uses
> Hindu terms like atman, antaskarana, mayavi-rupa, linga-sharira, etc.  HPB is
> clearly drawing from Advaita Vedanta terminology, if not philosophy, and this
> syncs beautifully with Yogacara, Jonangpa, and above all DZOGCHEN teachings.
> But it militates DIRECTLY against Gelugpa/Tsong Kha Pa/Yellow Hat teachings.
>
> How will Theosophists explain this contradiction, given that HPB calls Tsong
> Kha Pa the reincarnated Lord Buddha, and the highest Adept on the planet in
> our cycle?
>
> Thanks for the quotes, Dan.  I need to get some of those sources which I don't
> own.
>
> Rich