Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00264)

In a message dated 12/26/98 11:10:20 PM, Daniel wrote:

<<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.>>

Once again, Daniel, I don't think our views are truly very different.  I am
objecting to the Theosophical tendency to call all "Red Hat" devotees Black
Magicians, based on a few misunderstood comments from HPB and KH.  In
responding to that mistaken attitude, I promulgate how very similar the
Tibetan groups, AS A WHOLE, are to each other, and my original post left lots
of room for exceptions, extra textual traditions, friction.  Today, however,
nearly all Tibetan Buddhist teachers are on extremely good terms with each
other, regardless of some evil spirit which the Dalai Lama avoids.  There is
no modern basis for an eternal war between Red Hat and Yellow Hat Tibetan
Buddhists.  Bonpos are a different story, as I've said from the beginning.

You point out, Daniel, some very well-known conflicts between the Dalai Lama
and the Karmapa in the 17th century, a conflict which actually involved
Chinese and Dzungar armies, and which set the stage historical for the current
Tibetan pickle with the Chinese government (see Goldstein, A HISTORY OF MODERN
TIBET).  I admit occasional frictions, but again, I will assert these are
largely due to *POLITICAL* jealousies.  Four Dalai Lamas in a row were
assasinated by their own Regents (number 9, 10, 11, and 12) before they
reached their majority.  Surely, this cannot be blamed on internecine Gelugpa
doctrinal disputes??  Rather, these people are human and have human conflicts.
There are rivalries, jealousies.

But the Tibetan sects as a whole are not competing with each other for
adherents, or teaching radically different things about Buddhism or
Enlightenment.  That is my position.  There are differences, largely practical
and intellectual, but all agree on the same Buddhist canon, the same
fundamental truths the Buddha taught, etc.  If you want to magnify these
differences, you will be in good company.  Several leading scholars will
agree.  Myself, more on the experiential and "living" side of Tibetan
Buddhism, I have little interest in doctrinal debates about the ultimate
nature of the self or lack thereof.  I prefer to seek it than to describe or
debate it.  And I see Tibetan Buddhism as largely one flow with several large
streams.

Rich