Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00284)

In a message dated 98-12-31 02:51:04 EST, dear Leon wrote:

<< 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. >>

Thank God, Leon, that in defending Theosophy from my nefarious practices you
are able to simultaneously demonstrate that rarest of Theosophical
attainments, true charitable brotherhood in our common search for truth.  :)

Leon further opines,

<<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 ...>>

I've got news Leon -- Tibet is "beyond the Himalayas."  It is on the other
side of the Himalayas.  (All of Central Asia is "beyond the Himalayas" from
the Indian point of view.)  You seem to want to escape the Tibetan "ignorant
fools."  But just by the mention of the Panchen Lama (teacher of the Dalai
Lama) you have again dragged Tibet back into your discussion.  Also, HPB
mentions Tashilhunpo, Shigatse, Ganden, Sera and other monastery-cities as
locations of her Adept Teachers from time to time.  All of these places are in
Tibet, run by Tibetan Buddhists.  We *CANNOT* continue to refer to Tibetans
and their leaders as proof of Theosophical teachings, and then be unwilling to
look at them, talk to them, read about them IN THEIR OWN WORDS, as we can
today.  That's what this discussion is about.

For my part, I am glad that anyone interested in this *particular*
conversation should contribute what they think and what they know.  (I also
don't see why, if people are disinterested in this conversation, other
conversations are forbidden?)

I continue to suggest that Yellow and Red Hat teachings are really not that
different, and neither of them are incompatible with Theosophy.  For example,
THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD was first brought into English (1927) by Walter
Evans-Wentz, a lifelong Theosophist from San Diego and serious devotee of
Blavatsky.  However, THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD is a Nyingma (Red Hat) text
<gasp> -- I guess it should therefore be forbidden to all Theosophists.
However, the leading Buddhist scholar in America, Robert Thurman at Columbia,
uses Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) terms and categories to illuminate this "Nyingma"
text in his book THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD.  How does Professor Thurman
justify mixing such (as Theosophists appear to think) competing schools of
thought?  On page 73 of his book, Thurman writes,

"There are numerous Tantras used in the different Tibetan Buddhist orders, all
inherited from the creative pioneer work of the great Adepts of India ... All
these Tantras emerge from the same path of transcendent renunciation, the
enlightenment spirit of universal love, and the wisdom of selfless voidness."

(Keep in mind that for 20 years, Thurman was a YELLOW HAT monk, and is even
today one of the primary spokemen of His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama.  So
how can such a Yellow Hat devotee waste his time translating texts of the
evil, bad, monstrous, totally unacceptable ferocious --did I mention evil--
Red Hat sect?)

Thus, rather than show how wrong HPB was, I want to question just what HPB
really meant by Red Hat Tibetans.  Does she simply mean every single Tibetan
who belongs to one of the other three schools of Tibet, or the Bon (native)
religion?  Or does she have something more specific in mind?  And how can we
find out?

Surely, Theosophists cannot be faulted for taking advantage of the Tibetan
treasures now being offered up, with the mostly wonderful work being done not
only by Western scholars (well-despised by this list, apparently) but also by
THE TIBETAN YELLOW HAT LEADERS THEMSELVES.  His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama
himself has given the Kalachakra (Tantra) initiation over 20 times publically
-- last time to a crowd of 250,000.  Hitherto secret Tantras are now given to
a quarter million people at a time by the leader of the Yellow Hats, and we
Theosophists are not supposed to notice??

If HPB herself refers to the books of "Kiu-Te" (which in Tibetan is the word
for "Tantra") then I don't see how we can be faulted for studying the Tantras
ourselves.  Would HPB refer to things Tibetan that prove her doctrine is real,
and then forbid us from investigating them, as Leon does?

As there are Yellow Hat Tantras and Red Hat Tantras, and many Tantras which
they hold in common, and as they are all in print (many available in English,
email me for a pretty complete bibliography) I see it as a manifest duty of
Theosophists to investigate, compare, and question.  If *questions* aren't
allowed, then we are truly a flock of sheep, and our new motto shall be "There
is no religion higher than what we've been told."

Of course, if I am a nit-picking Nazi Dugpa collaborator (I had no idea I was
so important!), I guess all this is pretty irrelevant.

Rich