Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00274)

> From: W. Dallas TenBroeck
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 28, 1999 12:24 PM
> Subject: RE: Dallas: A Question on the Red Hats, Dugpas, etc. HOW HPB SPEAKS OF THEM

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 (1) 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 into 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, (as
well as 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 (2) 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 also implies complete freedom allowed to others to choose
their own "path," or way of life - so long as that freedom does
not unfairly restrict or impact on others' freedoms.  Communal
life is the universal testing ground of such doctrines when put
into application.

The first (1) may be generally called the "Doctrine of the Eye."
It is argumentative, analytical, and frequently does not take a
broad enough scope into account;  further, it is usually 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 has been developed into a catalogue of the "universal
virtues."  Tat is the applications in communal life of the
principles of doctrine and the facts of nature as universally can
be perceived existing and operating.

The second (2) 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.  These "virtues" are not to be taken or
applied as thought they were rigid or the expositions of some one
sect or creed (Theosophy included).  They are expressions of
UNIVERSAL APPLICATIONS OF DOCTRINES - which have been verified
and tested by a very large number of students and adepts - so as
to acquire the stature of expressions of TRUTH.  And yet, each
student will have to individually study and verify these, so that
the choice of his own "Path" will always be his own
responsibility.

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 (ass immortals in
the true sense of the term).
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.  It
is said that the "purpose of life is to learn, and it is all made
up of learning."  A statement that can (and must) be verified by
personal experience.
And this is the great stumbling block because we usually find
ourselves mentally setting limits to the extent and competence 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.  We ask ourselves :  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 that we have presented at
this junction of humanity's forward march with 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, (they antedate it) 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
for our present use and instruction ?

I think this is the value of Theosophy and the imperative reason
why each of us ought to devote as much time as we can to study
and verification of the propositions and ideas which the Masters
of Wisdom make available to us through thee writings of
H.P.Blavatsky.  We have been asked to STUDY, not to criticize,
unless we have adequate reasons for such differences that can
face the record of the Perennial Philosophy.

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 therefore
the aim for their works was limited to their own selfish ease and
benefit).  These two camps 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 also
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.  The responsibility for the election of one or the
other of these tow sets of objectives will always be squarely on
the individual student-inquirer.
I think this covers what I conceive is important in this matter.
I know that the designations down the ages differ, but the
motives and objectives and purposes of the respective "Paths" are
radically different.  One lives to benefit mankind, and the other
exists to obstruct its general progress;  and it favors
individuals over the masses.  It cares nothing for the general
progress in practice.  And that should be a very plain deciding
factor.
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

* THEOSOPHY WORLD-Theosophical Talk- theos-talk@theosophy.com

theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.

* THEOSOPHY WORLD-Theosophical Talk-theos-talk@theosophy.com

theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.