Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00267)

Dec 28th 1998

Dear Daniel:

In my reading of HPB's writings, the "Mahatma Letters," several
points seem to jump out at me.  I will admit that they are
probably those that appeal (after all these years) to me as being
fundamental.

There is a dual set of "doctrines."

The most obvious is the written or spoken word - which conveys
ideas up to and including the present - with the proviso that
these expressions may be changed or modified as one secures a
deeper understanding of the whole ( if "whole" is possible, and
can be "shared"!) exposition that THEOSOPHY offers.  [ This will
include the basic ideas (or propositions) of Theosophy,
The THREE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS - SD I pp. 14-19;  the 6 main
points given in the SUMMING UP SD I pp. 272-300;  then there is
the concept of the 7 divisions of Man's conscious constitution
which parallel and interact with a similar 7 in Nature - and both
these result, when mixed with the idea of the immortality of the
Egoic Self (MONAD - ATMA-BUDDHI) and the concept of recurring
analogetic CYCLES in a pattern of evolutionary progress (human,
the Earth as a whole, and our Universe);  pivotal to this whole
set-up is the idea that each one of us, each "life-atom," and
every living being is a divine, spiritual, and immortal BEING -
hence the concept of
Reincarnation under the LAW of Karma - justice and fairness for
all, invariable, impartial and totally just.	These do not total
so many but the ramifications, run everywhere.

Next are the ethical and moral implications of these basic ideas
which in short can be referred to as the "Golden Rule:"  "Do unto
others as you would have them do to you."  Thus the idea of
universal Brotherhood represents the epitome of the PRACTICE of
the doctrines outlined above.  It implies complete freedom
allowed to others to choose their own "path," or way of life - so
long as that freedom does not impact on others' freedoms.
Communal life is the universal testing ground of such doctrines
when put into application.

The first may be generally called the "Doctrine of the Eye."  It
is argumentative, analytical, and subject to the errors of
individual opinion.  However it is the area in which we all live
and through which we have to learn to be interactive as well as
tolerant.  Hence the concept of the universal virtues."

The second may be called the "Doctrine of the Heart."  It is
entirely the virtuous application by learning, attention,
concentration and effort of the universal doctrines that rule our
world and universe.

Theosophy naturally concerns itself with both of these and has
for field of application the many ways in which people act with
each other.  It encourages a close study of our world and
environment, leaving nothing out of account as unimportant, or
uninteresting.  It encourages tolerance and friendliness -
considering that we will have to continue to live together for
the rest of an infinitely long period of time.

It invites attention to a great common Goal - the return of the
learned and wiser Egoic entity (the MONAD that we are in
'essence') to its "Parent source" - the ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT.
And this is the great stumbling block because we usually find
ourselves mentally setting limits to the extent of such a SOURCE.
We look around us on the injustices and disparities of birth and
life in our world, and we see, generally, a jumble of disjointed
events - no reason, rhyme or logic to many lives.  How then is
LAW possible ?  How can there be any UNITY ?  is the idea of
perfectibility an impossible dream - as obviously it cannot be
realized in a single life-time ?

I believe that it is for this reason we have presented at this
junction of humanity's forward march the concept of certain great
fundamental ideas.  The word THEOSOPHY apparently was originated
and used by Pythagoras.  The fundamentals ideas are not
particular to it alone, as they have been used in all the great
philosophies and religions of the past and present.  But where
are they drawn together and synthesized ?

So getting back to the discussion on Dugpas and Red-Caps,
Gelugpas, etc... HPB and the Masters who co-authored the original
writings of Theosophy, showed how there were opposing camps of
theorists.  Basically the universalists, and the nominalists (who
chose to view a single life as a limitation and aim for their
works) work at cross purposes.  The latter are those designated
"Dugpas," "red-caps," etc... -- They have an excellent command of
doctrine, argument, logic, etc... as do the "Gelugpas,"
"yellow-caps," etc..., and their equivalents in all history.

I do not see the importance of mentioning them other than to take
note of those differences and objectives.  After all each student
is going to decided entirely on his own what "School" or
"Doctrine" he will adopt.  But, knowledge is better than
ignorance, and the wisest of all are those who know both sides of
the matter.

I thin covers what I think is important in the matter.

Let me know if there is more that ought to be developed, and I
will try.  I am of the opinions that "labels" are delusive and
have never solved anything.  There is no substitute for actual
study and constantly asking the question:  "Why ?"

Best wishes as always,

Dal.

> From: Caldwell/Graye
> Sent:	Monday, December 28, 1998 8:01 AM
> Subject: Dallas: A Question on the Red Hats, Dugpas, etc.

Dallas,

Since you are a serious student of Madame Blavatsky's writings
and the Mahatma
Letters, I for one would like to know what your understanding is
on what Rich and
I have been discussing about the Yellow Caps versus the Red Caps.

Certainly as you read what HPB wrote and what is found in the
Mahatma Letters, you
must have some understanding as to what is meant by these terms.

The most important question surrounding these issues is:  Does
Madame Blavatsky
and the Masters really know what they are talking about when they
write about the
Yellow Hats, the Dugpas, the Red Hats, the Bons?  How do we
reconcile what is
written in this Theosophical literature with what is now known
about Tibetan
Buddhism?


IN MY OPINION THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.  IT
IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT ONE'S OPPONENTS ARE AND WHAT THEY HAVE
IN THE WAY OF KNOWLEDGE, AND WHAT THEIR OBJECTIVES ARE.

THEOSOPHY IS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MANKIND AND IT IS NOT
CONGREGATIONAL.  No search for "adherents" is mounted. The doors
of knowledge and wisdom are open to all.

Dal

-------------------------------------------


Daniel


theos-talk@theosophy.com

of