Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00293)

In a message dated 12/31/98 10:52:47 AM, dear Rich wrote:

>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.  :)

Why are you responding in such a manner as to believe I directed my
comments--as having "nefarious practices"--to you personally.  Is that,
perhaps, an admission that you might really wish to defend "Dugpas" who
practices Tantric ritual magic and Tantric Sex for the non-religious self-
serving reasons stated in my other posts?  Or, is that an admission that
Dugpas and Red Hats are the same thing.  I certainly didn't say "you"
practiced those practices (that HPB actually said were "nefarious").
"Methinks that thou protestest too much".:-)  What has "charitable
brotherhood" got to do with what i've said about those bad guys you are
apparently defending?  I'm not one of their brothers.  And if you are really
defending these Brothers of the Shadow", I couldn't be one of yours either.
>
>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.

What does all that mean?  What did I opine?  And where did I say not to study
or read what Tibetans Buddhists have to say about their own religion.  All I
did was quote HPB and refer to the further documentation that confirms that
while the Masters were known to Tibetans and were from time to time in their
cities to meet students and friends, they actually were Indians, not "Tibetan
Buddhists", and lived far North of Tibet, or if in Tibet, north of the main
centers of Buddhism.  Perhaps even in Mongolia.  My claim is simply that your
continued attempts to discredit HPB and the Masters, might (stress MIGHT) have
an ulterior motive, and I was merely warning other, possibly gullible students
to be aware that such MAY be the case, and to take heed.  Especially, now,
since you haven't taken my advice and continue to use exoteric "authorities"
to contradict esoteric teachings that come from an entirely different and much
earlier, source.

And How can modern Tibetan Buddhist teachers or their scriptures "prove"
anything about theosophy which originated long before even the most Ancient
religions which go back as far as Atlantis?  How, can you compare even Indian
Buddhism which is almost as modern as Christianity with those Ancient
religions which are at least 5,000 years earlier and closer to the roots of
theosophy than either of them?

>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?)

They certainly aren't--except for the possibility that this conversation has
become so bizarre and contradictory as to capture the attention of almost
everyone.  Also, perhaps, it's because I have stirred up the pot a bit and, by
calling a spade a spade, have triggered a vigorous defense against what
appears to be my contention (not opinion) that the Dalai and Panchen Lamas are
no better authorities on the esoteric teachings of theosophy than the head
Rabbi of Jerusalem.;-)   HPB enjoined us to study ancient (stress ANCIENT)
religions and philosophies--so as to understand that their fundamental roots
are a confirmation (not a proof) of the esoteric teachings of theosophy--NOT
the current or POST ANCIENT exoteric religious practices, which are as far
from theosophy as the present practices of the modern Hebrews, Egyptians, and
Mayans are from their original "Ancient" roots.  Remember, Buddhism is not an
ANCIENT religion, but, compared to the Egyptians, Hebrews, Mazdains,
Chaldeans, Mayans and Brahmins, almost as modern as Christianity--although not
quite as distorted.  But, enough to make it questionable as "esoteric"
reference.
>
>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?)

We never said that the Red Hat sect was "evil, bad, monstrous, totally
unacceptable ferocious --did I mention evil" (your words).  Nor did I mention
anything about the Tibetan Book of the Dead being forbidden to theosophists.
All I said was that some self-promoting academic Tibetan Buddhist "experts"
were using these references to justify the practice of Sexual Tantra outside
of it's intended (understandably and certainly not particularly evil, but
certainly a "manipulation of karma for selfish purposes" which isn't very
theosophically ethical) use by those fulfilling the need to magically assist
"Tulku" Lamas in their "instant" reincarnation.

Neither did I say there was anything evil in the Book of the Dead or any other
Tantra scriptures or Red Hat (or Yellow Hat) Buddhist practices.  I also said
that there is a distinction between the Dugpa--(using that word only as
referring to "black [selfishly motivated] magicians", not to particular sects
having that name)--elements in the Red Hats and possibly in the sects
represented by the Panchen Lama (which many "experts" don't seem to recognize
the possibility of) and that the Dugpas, some who also call themselves
Buddhists, are the ones who practice certain Tantras in forbidden (Not by me,
but by Tibetan teachers) rites and for selfish purposes that could be
considered "nefariously evil".  To deny that on the basis of quoted scripture
is like denying that there are murderous Christians on the basis that all
"Christians" who profess to follow the teachings of the Christ as quoted in
the Bible, are good.  So I ask, why are you blanket defending all Red Hat,
some of whom may also be Dugpas?

And, besides, what has all that got to do with theosophy, the second object,
or brotherhood?  Your twisting of my words (and your other crony's
psychologizing my point of view) seems like typical propaganda ploys to
discredit an opponent who may be touching a tender point.  Taking what I said
about Dugpas personally, is your problem, not mine.  Although I apologize if I
have appeared to insult anybody unjustifiably.
>
>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?

What difference does that make to the teaching of theosophy?  All that such
"finding out" can do is clarify the matter for a practicing Tibetan Buddhist
who might want to be able to recognize the bad guys among them (or join them
if they like what they are doing.;-).  Therefore, why is this being brought
into a discussion of theosophy other than for what appears to be an attempt to
discredit HPB?  If anyone would study the SD from cover to cover he might
easily find out what she meant.  As far as I have determined, (and this is an
opinion based on eclectic studies over many years) she probably meant, an evil
Cult, whose members could have been born in and initiated in any Tibetan sect.
. . Perhaps even the Nyingmapas--since they carry on the magical traditions
which have their roots in pre Buddhistic Bonpa shamanism, and which the Dugpas
also use for their "nefarious" activities.  My late Nyingmapa Lama friend, who
eventually "recanted" some of his vows to become a theosophist--before he
died, admitted that he was also initiated in the "Dugpa" cult, and that his
original "mission" was to "infiltrate and destroy theosophy as a powerful
group promoting altruism and universal brotherhood--something that is inimical
to us" (his words).  This is almost like some devout Moslems who were also in
the cult of Hasassin (or the Assassins) and enjoined to destroy the
"infidels."  Are the fanatic Moslem terrorists of today any different?  Would
the Dugpas of today be any different than the way HPB and the Masters warned
us about them over century ago?  So, why are you apologizing for them?
>
>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??

Who is stopping them?  But, then, why should theosophists have to notice
anything about exoteric Buddhist practices?  What has that got to do with the
study of theosophy?  Whatever is given out to the people has now become
exoteric, as theosophy also has become (for possibly different reasons) and
why shouldn't it interest those theosophists who are also Buddhists or
interested in the modifications of Buddhism?  But why should others be
interested?  Those so called "treasures" cannot in any way change, add to, or
refute the scientific, philosophical and ethical teachings of theosophy, which
are well covered in the S.D.

My interest was only to comment that such exoteric teachings and practices
should not be used to refute the basic ideas of theosophy or discredit its
teachers.  It was also to clarify some things about Tantric sexual practices
that were being overlooked and therefore might give theosophists a wrong
impression about why HPB condemned it.  Is there anyone here who said that
Tantric teachings for the most part or, in particular, Kalachakra initiations,
are evil of have anything to do with the sexual Tantra practices--that are
only considered "evil" (your word) when used for its unintended purposes of
performing black magic?  Where have I (or anyone else) forbidden theosophists
to do or notice anything?  Are you really serious, or are you just being
particularly nasty in your innuendoes directed apparently to the writers of
statements or opinions about Tibetan Buddhism that tick you off personally as
a practicing Buddhist. (None of these writers, as far as I can see, ever
attacked you personally either directly or indirectly? Although I won't say
they were kind to those "ignorant lamas" some of whom may be falsely
worshipped gurus) Are we now being forced to agree that ALL Tibetan Buddhist
practices are good or theosophical--based on your "authorities"--be they
Western or native scholars?   What kind of "charitable brotherhood" is that?
And why should these authorities claim to have any better authority than HPB
claimed even she didn't have.  Theosophy is to be studied and understood on it
own principles and merits or not at all.  Confirmation or falsification by any
"authorities" have no meaning whatsoever.  Unless you are already caught up in
a religious dogma and need to study comparative religion to find the
theosophical root in all of them so as to wean you from your own dogmas, even
studying religions can make no difference in proving or disproving theosophy.
>
>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?

Mentioning or referring to the Tantras, and "studying" the Tantras are two
different things.  The latter are for Buddhists to do.  Why should
theosophists do that?  Since when do the Tantras (or any modern scriptural
practices for that matter) "prove" anything about the reality of HPB's or the
Masters doctrines?  Teaching theosophy here is one thing, but teaching
Buddhism is another, and has no place in a theosophical discussion group.  Are
you such a poor student that you do not know the difference between "proof"
and mere confirmation of a point of argument by referring to a book or
scripture in context?  And why do you keep on implying untruthfully, by
innuendo that I have forbidden anything?   That remark might label you either
as paranoid or, that your hidden purpose is to discredit HPB and that you will
stoop to any means of argument, no matter how specious, to do so.  Even so far
(as has been done by others who seem to agree with you) to impugn my motives
and to imply that I am an angry  neurotic psychopath who sees a snake under
every stone.
>
>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."

What makes you the "authority" who is now telling students of theosophy what
their "manifest duties" are?  Why should they investigate, compare and
question anything about the Buddhist religion or practice?  How can that teach
them anything about theosophy?  Are you the dictator of what and how
theosophists study?  And, why are you constantly harping that someone is
prohibiting you from doing anything and that your questions aren't allowed?
Who has done this evil deed to you?  What do you fear that makes you so
sensitive to my comments about Dugpas and their agents?  It seems to me that
the Tibetan Buddhist parrots (or sheep-like followers of their Lama-gurus) are
the only ones in this forum who believe "there is no religion higher that what
(they) have been told."  Are all you Tibetan Buddhists becoming the same kind
of proselytizers that we have had enough of from the Jesus freaks and the neo-
Nazi stooges who keep spamming or proselytizing this and other
theosophical--and even Buddhist forums?

Anyway, I've posted my warnings with the aim of alerting new students who may
be gullible enough to believe that the truths promulgated by HPB can be
refuted by modern exoteric religious teachings.  Regardless of whether or not
there are a few typographical or editorial errors in her, for the most part,
unassailable teachings of the nature the reality of universal origin, law and
evolution, as well as the moral imperatives which they imply.  If that makes
you think that I have attacked you all personally, then its your problem, and
I don't have to defend myself against personal insults couched in the form of
folk psychoanalysis.

As a final note to all my self-chosen "opponents" in this lively side track
debate about Tibetan Buddhist practices. . .  Regardless of the way I may
respond to your actions either positively or negatively, as I see them
manifesting on this physical-mental plane--on the higher consciousness plane,
I love you all from the neutral centers of the heart, the soul and the
spirit--as ONE SELF.  To realize that dichotomy--as it resolves into a
trinity, then a quaternary and finally creating the ruling septenary--is to
solve the "riddle of the ages" and to cut the "Gordian knot."

As HPB might say... "May you all advance to the next terrace of enlightenment
and have the most favorable karma thereafter."

LHM.