Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00281)

In response to blafoun@azstarnet.com, Richtay@aol.com and any other nit
pickers of theosophical teachings who babble about Red Hats and Dugpas, while
justifying their nefarious practices, with the lame excuse that they are doing
it to defend HPB from her detractors.

 (Forgive me if I have wrongly included anyone who may not fit this
description--but "if the shoe fits...")

I bow to your superior second (or third :~) hand, supposedly "expert",
knowledge of Tibetan Buddhist sects and their diverse and contradictory
practices, and henceforth will refrain from making statements based on first
hand aural information from those I consider reliable sources--unless I find
opinionated statements or falsehoods in an open forum that imply that Madam
Blavatsky didn't know what she was talking about. . . This is not to protect
HPB (who needs no defense) but to protect new students who are listening in to
what should be private conversations, and who might believe that these HPB
detractors know what they are talking about.

Also, since I agree that the rationale for your discussion rests on the 2nd
object (as well as the First Amendment--I presume), I hereby withdraw my
objections to your "private", possibly self serving conversations on this
forum, with the  hope that they may eventually clear up many of the
misconceptions about HPB's statements regarding the Tibetan sects and her use
of Hindu terminology based on knowledge received from her Indian "Adept"
teachers--(not Tibetan Lamas or from second hand Buddhist scriptures)--who
happened to be living North of Tibet, according to HPB, "...beyond the
Himalayas a nucleus of Adepts, of various nationalities, and the Teshu
(Panchen) Lama knows them, and they act together, and some of them are with
him and yet remain unknown in their true character even to the average
lamas--who are ignorant fools mostly".  (H.P.B., biography by S. Cranston, p
82-83 with appropriate corroboratory Notes and footnotes)

Be informed that I didn't enter this conversation about obscure and
contradictory Tibetan Buddhist practices for any other reason than that I
found alleged "theosophists" of self proclaimed wisdom promulgating false
interpretations of important theosophically descriptive Sanskrit words, with
no understanding of their real meanings and usage, nor knowledge of the
Sanskrit practices that exoteric translators of Buddhists texts ascribed them
to--and about which I have had first hand knowledge from those theosophists
close to the former Panchen Lama as well as the Karmapa (who, themselves, knew
very little about the esoteric teachers of HPB--as she pointed out).

With respect to my statement about HPB and her being a Gelugpa, this comes
from memory of a statement made to me many years ago by the daughter of close
friends of HPB, who said she was told by her parents that HBP, when asked what
sect she would belong to if she was a Tibetan Buddhist, replied, "the Yellow
Hats".  Therefore, I retract my original statement's implication, that she
actually WAS an "ordained" Gelugpa.   (How could a theosophical "Adept", or
any true theosophists for that matter be an "ordained " member of any
particular exoteric religion?)

As for my defense of theosophy,  I state again, that the whole purpose of the
Secret Doctrine was to teach theosophists the true nature of universal genesis
and evolution, and to imbue us with the truths of reincarnation and karma--and
not to promulgate Buddhist or Hindu or Hebrew teachings--although HPB used
such teachings to verify that theosophy was the basis underlying ALL
religions, while continually warning that such teachings were, on the most
part, priest-crafty distortions of the underlying theosophy for their own
nefarious or self-serving purposes.  (This was the basis of that portion of
the 2nd object saying, "...and the demonstration of the importance of such
study"

"Accordingly, my purpose and intent is to steer theosophical students back to
the core teachings of HPB and to the true meanings of the three objects as
well as the three fundamentals.  Justifying the religious practices of any
exoteric organized religious group is not in the best interests of theosophy
and its aims and purposes.

When theosophists study religious scriptures, the main purpose is to
understand how the esoteric roots of these religions conform to the
fundamental truths of theosophy, not how their exoteric misinterpretations can
prove or disprove the credulity of the theosophical "Teachers".

-----------------------------------------------
In a message dated 12/25/98 3:20:18 PM, Dan wrote:

>Rich,
>
>I was planning to answer Leon's and Dallas' latest comments but you have
answered
>them so well that I need only say that I agree 100% with your reply below.
>
>In the very near future, I will be responding to your recents posts on "The
>Theosophical Glossary" and "Yellow Hats versus Red Hats."
>
>Dan
>
>Richtay@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 12/25/98 12:35:18 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> <<The only thing I have to say about this opinionated discussion of Tibetan
>> practices and beliefs (hoping to end it in this public theosophical forum
once
>> and for all) is that HPB was professed to be a Gelugpa Buddhist (as are
many
>> of her students) and that it was the Dalai Lama who wrote a dedication, on
her
>> behalf, to the Voice of the Silence.>>
>>
>> Leon, thanks for your clarification as to your motives and interests.  I
must
>> point out, however, that you have contributed a very great deal on Tibetan
>> practice and ideas.  Your writings are also, in my opinion, quite
opinionated.
>> Which is fine.  They are your opinions, and clearly labelled.  Your motive
may
>> be to direct attention to Theosophy, but you have also entered the
>> conversation on a purely Buddhist-practice level.
>>
>> I am surprised by your interest in terminating this discussion.  I wasn't
>> aware that you wished to become modetator of this list and assess what is
and
>> isn't worthy of the attention of Theosophists.  The current discussion of
>> Tibetan practice falls squarely under the second object of the T.S.  The
ULT,
>> in its many innovations, may have left this object by the wayside, but Mr.
>> Judge, with his Oriental Department and interest in collecting original
>> Sanskrit manuscripts, did not.  If such a topic bores you or repels you,
why
>> not ignore it?  Why not start a discussion on a topic that interests you?
I
>> promise not to criticize your choice.
>>
>> You may feel that all this discussion is a distraction; I do not.  HPB
makes
>> definite claims not only about Theosophy, but about the Buddhists and
>> Vedantins and others: their beliefs, their practices, their history, their
>> inter-relationships.  These claims can and should be investigated,
evaluated,
>> and defended if warranted.  In this way, Theosophy can be protected from
its
>> attackers and justified to inquirers.  Many Theosophists may not need such
>> justification, but many (like myself) indeed do.  If pure spiritual
intuition
>> were enough for everyone, the Secret Doctrine wouldn't have any footnotes.
>>
>> As to your statement quoted above, you have again gotten yourself into
trouble
>> by making claims that are hard to validate.  Where indeed does HPB profess
>> that she is a Gelugpa Buddhist?  And if that is in fact true, why does she
>> hand out teachings like Atman, Sutratman, etc., which go directly against
>> Gelugpa teachings, but support Hindu and Dzogchen ideas?  You can make all
the
>> assertions you want, but they will influence few unless you can give at
least
>> some small indication as to why you think so.  You may indeed have a
library
>> chock full of indexes and notes, but this work is helpful to you alone
(i.e.,
>> selfish) if it provides no help to others than bald assertions.  HPB
disdained
>> to work this way, and moved heaven and earth to provide truly incredible
>> references to skeptical inquirers in ISIS and the SECRET DOCTRINE.  I
myself
>> am a Theosophist only because she did this, and I was able to verify much
of
>> what she wrote.
>>
>> Dallas is certainly right in asserting that HPB uses terms and ideas in her
>> own Esoteric way, and she does not need our approval or anyone else's to do
>> so.  However, when you label her as actually a member of a sect, and she
>> exhibits behavior and ideas that contradict that sect, I am moved to
question
>> and ask for proof of your assertion.  Where does Theosophy laud Gelugpa
>> doctrines and motives?  And why do Theosophical teachings in some cases
>> directly contradict known writings of Tsong Kha Pa, founder and leader of
the
>> Gelugpa sect?
>>
>> Rich