Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00204)

Jan 17th 1999

Dear Leon:

What you say about Tibetan Buddhist (?) texts etc. is very
interesting.  There is comparatively little that has been put
into English.  And also, many, many of the truly  been carefully
hidden.

Those who take it upon themselves to make disclosures
(translations, glosses, commentaries) will have to demonstrate by
their adherence to the ethics and the "path" of the Mahayana,
that they are fit exponents of those texts - usually copies, more
or less accurate of the ancient ones.

As to "esotericism" and "exotericism"  I would say that anything
that is "disclosed," whether it be translated into English or
not, becomes by its writing or its exposition - to that extent -
EXOTERIC.

As to the defense of HPB.  I am of the vigorous opinion that we,
her few friends, and scattered students, ought to feel stung
every time some ill-advised and inadequate criticism is publicly
leveled at her(and Karmically it comes to our personal
attention).

I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from HPB
to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any
way.

They ought to be asked for sources and proofs - point-blanc.  And
so far, there have been none that are substantiated.  I have
consistently done this for years a few answers and those who did
were only able to offer secondary or tertiary "sources."

The Philosophy of Theosophy has never so far been successfully
criticized or attacked philosophically or ethically.  This ought
to be noted carefully.

If we neglect this (her defense), then we to that extent (by our
silence) agree to those insults being continued - and they are
not necessarily directed at Her, but also at the Masters !

It is, in my esteem, our individual Karma that acts as a "test" -
an "occult test", please, to see if we are truly alert and truly
grateful to Her and to the Great and ancient Masters of Wisdom to
whom we owe all that we have so far become, and for what we have
received and profited by.

Best wishes,

Dallas.

> From: "Leon Maurer" <leonmaurer@aol.com>
> Sent:	Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Response to Rich

In a message dated 1/15/99 11:08:21 AM, Richtay@aol.com writes:

><<Would you not agree that that which is public knowledge is, by
default,
>exoteric?>>
>
>Yes, Paul, all printed knowledge commonly available cannot be
truly said to
be
>"esoteric."  Therefore, all HPB wrote is now "exoteric," even if
we
may.assume
>her source, with the complete teachings of the Wisdom Tradition,
remains
>"esoteric."

Not necessarily. . . The difference between exoteric teaching and
esoteric
teaching does not depend on whether the ideas presented are
published or not.
It's the *ideas* themselves that are either esoteric or exoteric.
In the case
of esoteric ideas, such as those directly presented in the Book
of Dzyan,
their understanding and application depends on whether the
student is advanced
enough on the path toward self realization. . . Or, as in the
case of
"religious canons", whether that knowledge is a second hand
interpretation,
into a metaphoric representation so that those of lesser
understanding can
comprehend and apply them.--sometimes, by (exoteric) compulsion
impelled by
group emulation, or blind faith--rather than by individual
(esoteric) self
conviction based on individually self devised and self determined
study and
effort.

In the case of the Modern religion of Buddhism of which there are
many
interpretations of the esoteric teaching that have taken on the
forms of
dogma, or of ritualized practices (guided or controlled  by
personal
vows)--there is no comparison between the original teachings as
esoterically
presented to "initiates"  by the truly *ancient* religions
(which, being
closer to the source, had a clearer, esoteric understanding of
the nature of
reality and the hierarchy of forces and powers)--and their
anthropomorphized
or physicalized symbolization and ritualization as presented by
the later
religions, such as so called esoteric (but really exoteric)
Tibetan Buddhism,
Hinduism, Christianism, Muslimism, Bahaiaism, Scientism,
Materialism, etc.

The Tibetan iconography and personifications, therefore, are
certainly no more
esoteric than all the other religious disciplines, no matter
whether given out
to the common monks or reserved for the initiated lamas,    who,
as HPB said,
were "mostly ignorant fools".  (And, if so, then, many of their
students would
be equally so, or even more so.  Especially, if they had to
depend on
seconhand and even third hand *interpreted* versions of the
original "canons"
made by linguists, philologists, or "orientalists".;~).

This does not, of course, place any aspersion on the true
follower of the
Buddha, who through his own efforts (as Gautama did himself)
attains Bodhi, or
Sophia, or true esoteric knowledge with the wisdom to apply it.)
Certainly,
Vajrayana may be more or less exoteric than Mahayana or Hinayana.
. . But such
differences are purely relative, and have little relationship to
the really
esoteric teaching of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis based on
fundamental
principles as presented in the "Secret Doctrine". . . That, until
understood
in all its ramifications by the Adept, remains esoterically
secret to the
spiritually unawakened Sanghas or Chelas--who can only understand
and follow,
symbolically or metaphorically, the secondhand exoteric
interpretations made
by their gurus or teachers.

>I would point out that the texts of Tibetan Buddhism, with rare
exceptions,
>were until 20 years ago, completely non-available to anyone in
any Western
>language.  To this day, copies of the Tibetan canon, even in
Tibetan, are
>EXTREMELY RARE and 99% untranslated.  I guess that makes them
esoteric.
> More esoteric than HPB's Theosophy, at present.  And so what?

As said above (and I hope, understood) their publication or not
hasn't
anything to do with the esotericism or exotericism of the ideas
presented.
The Tibetan Canon is still a relatively modern teaching as
compared to the
Book of Dzyan with it's *fundamental* theosophical teachings, or,
even as
compared to any of the ancient religions represented by the
Hebrew's,
Egyptian's, Brahman's, Mazdaian's, Mayan's, *cabbalas* or
"esoteric
teachings".  e.g.; The Hebrew Kabbala has been "published" for
hundreds, if
not thousands, of years based on the original oral teachings of
*Cosmogenesis*--with all its numbers and geometrics consistent
with the Book
of Dzyan and, yet,  remains to this day entirely esoteric--while
the Bible's
Old Testament *Genesis* based on much later interpretations of
the teachings
of Moses, is entirely exoteric (even in its original written
language of
Hebrew)--although still earlier than the earliest Buddhistic
scriptures which
were first written in their native language, Sanskrit, let alone
later
translated into modern Tibetan and then into even more modern,
English.  The
same can be said of the Brahmanic Vedas, as well as the Bhagavad
Gita--as
compared to the later Puranas and Upanishads, and all their Pali,
Tibetan and
English (second and third hand) translations.  (Or, could we say,
progressive
"distortions"").

Therefore, publication cannot be a condition of exotericism, nor
can it be any
assurance of former esotericism--and, especially so, in the case
of
"translations" from the original language.  So, the entire Indian
or Tibetan
Buddhist Canon, from Hinayana to Vajrayana, can bever be
considered "more
esoteric" than the Secret Doctrine.
>
>I strongly doubt that simply being "esoteric" makes something
"true."
>So let's lay off the one-upmanship and claims to esoteric
authority, and
>what source is more esoteric, and therefore more important.
What would that
>prove? HPB stands head and shoulders above every spiritual
writer this
century
>or last.  We needn't trip over ourselves in our rush to unsully
her
reputation.
>She and her teachings are beyond our puny attempts to attack or
defend.

I agree about HPB.  But, I beg to differ about esoteric teachings
which, as
referring to fundamental *ideas*, are always far closer to
*Truth* than any
later "exoteric" interpretation or translation of those ideas.
The only
"esoteric authority", after all, is the "correct view" of the
truly
enlightened being at each stage of his understanding and
conviction (of the
true nature of "reality")--as his conscious-awareness progresses
up the 7 step
ladder from matter to spirit.  How many later interpretations or
translations
are made by such highly advanced beings?

We might add that HPB (along with her co-writers, M and KH) also
stands head
and shoulders above every writer of "Religious Canons" used in
any exoteric
"religion" for at least the past 24 centuries.  The only
comparable source of
esoteric knowledge prior to that time would be the Bhagavad Gita
written by
Vyasa as part of the ancient Mahabharata which preceded or was
contemporary
with the Vedas.  (We might also include the I-Ching, and the Book
of Enoch in
this "ancient" catagory).  The Book of Dzyan, however, is said to
be much
earlier than all of these writings and, thereby, much closer to
the "primal
beginning" or the "lighting up of Manas", as well as to the
"time" of the
Dhyan Chohan or Adhi Buddha "reflections" (Avatars), or primary
"incarnations"
on this plane of existence (or in this manifestation of Manu).
Therefore, it
has far greater "credentials" as being much closer to fundamental
truths in
its "first hand" presentation in Senzar, as well as its "second
hand"
translations into Tibetan, Sanskrit and English.  Incidentally,
when I asked
my former initiated Nyingmapa Lama friend (linguist, physicist,
esoteric
science teacher, and later theosophist) who had access to the
books of
Vajrayana and Tantric scriptures in the personal collection of
the late
Panchan Lama, if they contained any reference to the teachings of
the
fundamental principles and "formulas" of cosmo- and
anthropo-genesis as laid
out in the Secret Doctrine--he said, "none whatsoever"--although,
he did add
that they implied these truths to a certain degree in their
exoteric
symbolizations and allegorizations underlying their
ritualizations.

LHM

theos-talk@theosophy.com

of