Theos-Talk Archives (August 2000 Message tt00005)

Dan,
a few short notes on the question of a buddhist Absolute:

Most tibetan buddhists, including the gelugpa, divide their beliefs in an
esoteric and exoteric part. The exoteric part is typically something like
Nagarjuna's philsophy of Void, described below [btw the relation between the
void and svabhaava - the manifestation of Self as a part of that void is
esoteric in itself]
    The esoteric part is usually one or more tantric lineages, orally
transmitted, and kept very secret to this day.
    The only major tantric commentary, translated in part into a western
language, has only  recently been made available. It is the Vimalaprabha,
the great commentary on the Kalachakra Tantra, a major object of research
for David Reigle (a fine scholar and something of the closest to a *true*
theosophist I can imagine)
    And now for the Absolute - this work, especially in its fifth book, the
book of "dzny'a na" teaches the principle called the "parama akshara" or
Supreme/Absolute Immutable, the same name used for ages in indian philosophy
for the Absolute principle (the other being Param brahma). To remove any
doubts on the identity the Vimalaprabha uses the same qualities (jnana and
bliss) as the Vedanta for this principle, and also associates it with the
Turiya state of consciousness (as do the Vedanta philosophy - and HPB).
   This secret doctrine of the Kalacakra tantra is specifically associated
with the gelugpa, especially its chiefs, the Dalai lama, etc. It is also
considered secret to this day.
  The recent translations of the "Great Commentary" are found in ph.d
dissertations by Ronald Newman (1986), Vesna Wallace and James Hartzell (all
available through UMI), and in a little book by Raniero Gnoli (translated
into italian).
    Should anyone want bibliograhic details or discuss the philosophy of
this Absolute please e-mail me privately.

Kim Poulsen

---- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Caldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 5:53 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: The Gelugpa Tradition and THE SECRET DOCTRINE on
the Absolute


>
> Frank,
>
> Thanks for your comments below.  In this email I will
> address just one comment of yours:
>
>
> I wrote:
>
> > > The quote:
> > > > "Dolpopa apparently teaches the first
> fundamental
> > proposition
> > > > of The Secret Doctrine, and Tsong-kha-pa
> > apparently
> > > > refutes it"
> >
> > > are the words of David Reigle in his book
> > BLAVATSKY'S
> > > SECRET BOOKS.  They are NOT mine.  It is David
> > > Reigle's opinion that Tsong-kha-pa refuted the 1st
> > > Fundamental proposition as given in HPB's Secret
> > > Doctrine.
>
>
> Frank, you wrote in reply:
>
> > If this is so, then David is surely wrong. For me
> > there is no difference between Tsongkhapa and SD.
>
>
> Frank, whatever you may think of David Reigle's
> research, here is what another researcher says about
> the issue under discussion.  I quote BELOW his letter
> to me which he has given me permission to quote on
> these forums.  The letter is from Rich Taylor:
>
>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:51:10 EDT
> Subject: The Gelugpa Tradition and THE SECRET DOCTRINE
> on the Absolute
>
> Daniel,
>
> Thanks for your comments -- they have jumped started
> my dissertation work after too-long a hiatus.
>
> You are right about Tsong Kha Pa. (And of course, your
> source Reigle is right about him.) It is a serious
> problem, and you can quote me on it.
> The Gelugs-Pas are ASBOLUTELY DEAD-SET against any
> absolute, of ANY  kind. Emptiness is the highest
> principle -- not a pleroma-emptiness like
> the Gnostics, but an emptiness even empty of
> emptiness. They are serious about this.
>
> It is a deconstructive position, not a positive
> assertion. I will find quotes to this effect. The
> Gelugs will oppose ANY positive assertion,
> just as Nagarjuna (their hero) did, and HPB makes
> plenty of them.
>
> Reigle continues to assert that "secret" books of
> Tsong Kha Pa will vindicate HPB's adoration of him
> while contradicting his public and well-known
> teachings. But this is a faith statement. The
> situation as it stands is that HPB is closer to
> Jonang-pas than any other known school of Buddhism,
> and directly opposed (in principle) to the Madhyamaka
> position of the Yellow Hats.
>
> I'll have more on this in a few weeks.
>
> Rich
> ------------------
>
> So Frank, here is another Blavatsky student who has
> studied Tsong-kha-pa and has come to a conclusion that
> confirms Reigle's.  Rich promises to provide some
> documentation and I will pass that along when he gives
> it to me.
>
> Yes, Frank, I will call David Reigle and read him what
> you say in your public email about him and Hank T.  I
> don't know if he will want to respond.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =====
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> DanielhCaldwell@yahoo.com
> Blavatsky Archives Online
> http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


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

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.