Theos-Talk Archives (April 2010 Message tt00023)

Upon reading the discussion about dugpas here and then looking at the posts on theosnet, I wondered at the comment "The rules at the beginning of the discussion said 'no internal references'. It's like Christian fundamentalists quoting their Bible as a source."  Elsewhere on theosnet I also saw K. Paul Johnson write: "It's not the invention of the word but its appropriation by Theosophical discourse in a way that completely distorts its original meaning that seems to me an ethical problem here. Most especially because the *concept* of dugpa as found in the MLs/HPB and modern fanatics is inherently harmful, the conflation of Enemy Other with completely respectable non-Gelugpa sects whose hats are the "wrong" color. Like Covenant-Breaker with Baha'is, dugpas among Theosophists are a Constant Threat Against Whom We Must Maintain Constant Vigilance. It's a horrendously paranoid notion and the Theosophists who most enjoy it are the ones whose proclivities lie in that direction. And inflict that worldview on the rest to some extent".

I think these two posts point to why Theosophists find this discussion interesting.  Theosophists are trying to find validation for some of its doctrines outside the works of modern theosophical literature (from Blavatsky forward).  "Dugpas" is a particularly contentious term as it is perceived to be bandied about by "Theosophical Fundamentalists" as an attack upon those who do not share their own "narrow beliefs".  It has become fashionable in more cultured theosophical circles to embrace sects that on closer inspection really don't share the same doctrines as theosophy.  There also seems to be the idea that a modern understanding of dugpas means that we cannot deny that whatever identifies sects like the Bon and the Jesuits as dugpas, is not really different than behaviors and beliefs that exist within any organization, including the TS.

Although it may be true that Blavatsky would refer to much of the "Theosophy" that came after her time as dugpa-inspired, the doctrines of the original program were consistently on point.  As a theosophical fundamentalist (one who embraces the fundamental principles of theosophy as outlined by Blavatsky and the Masters), I find it troubling that people continue to make mistakes in reasoning when looking at these sorts of discussions.  To refer to the Jesuits or Bon as dugpas is not an attack on an individual Catholic or citizen of Bhutan.  A Catholic or Red-Cap who is attracted to theosophy and wishes to join, does so because they are attracted to the principles upon which the Society stands.  They have demonstrated an ability to think for themselves just by looking outside their own set of doctrines at what else is available - the implication being their own doctrines do not address some of their questions.  The ability to grow is fundamental to any theosophist, he must be able to go beyond whatever belief set he currently has whether narrow or broad, whether shallow or deep, to beliefs that are broader and deeper.

Modern Scholars look at Theosophy as a religion.  As such they would naturally look at the doctrines of the Society as binding on its followers.  Theosophists deny this.  They contend they only believe what on principle is self-evident, and what can be logically reasoned from these self-evident truths.  This is what theosophical doctrine tries to cultivate.  Many mediocre minds see an answer that references Blavatsky or the Masters as evidence of referencing a theosophical doctrine in order to argue for the truth of a theosophical doctrine.  However, Blavatsky, Judge, and the Masters argued from first principle.  So a theosophist who  points to the words of Blavatsky or the Masters in response to a question is often saying that "I can explain it no better than this".  The "this" being an argument for the questioner to consider.  In time, it would be hoped that every theosophist would be able to find their own words by which to answer questions made to them, but as they learn, it does not seem inappropriate to quote someone who has a firmer grasp on the doctrine than oneself.

This gets me to the point I want to make.  Theosophical doctrine does not need validation from other traditions, from first rate scholars, or from any outside source.  It needs validation from within. One must start weeding out false beliefs so that self-evident truths can make themselves seen.  When seen more or less clearly we must start trying to figure out what these truths imply.  Atma-buddhi perceives the self-evident, Buddhi-Manas reasons, and Kama-Manas understands and is transformed.  You need a spiritual principle in order to perceive a spiritual truth, hence the atma in atma-buddhi, you need a reasoning power to start seeing logical conclusions, hence the buddhi in buddhi-manas, and you need a physical principle that stands under the spiritual and transforms itself into a more spiritual reflection of what is above, the kama in kama-manas.  When we understand every desire of the kamic sphere as a confusion whose  spiritual essence is rooted in the Absolute, we will desire only to reflect the Absolute and be free of ignorance.

There is nothing wrong with adhering to fundamental principles, as long as those fundamental principles are self-evident to you.  If someone objects that the principle is not self-evident then there is not a whole lot you can say.  Either someone understands that 1 + 1 = 2, or they don't.  As for that which is argued from the self-evident, theosophists must become proficient in such arguments.  Theosophists should be saying that I understand and accept this to be true because of this argument that relies on these self-evident truths. Until you understand the fundamentals, you don't understand anything, and when you understand the fundamentals completely, you know everything.

Statements like: "the *concept* of dugpa as found in the MLs/HPB and modern fanatics is inherently harmful, the conflation of Enemy Other with completely respectable non-Gelugpa sects whose hats are the 'wrong' color" - are ludicrous to any fundamental theosophist.  The association of "enemies" with "hats of the wrong color" ably demonstrates the depth of some peoples understanding of theosophy.  Theosophists turn their back on the the selfish beliefs and practices of the leaders of all religions and how that inevitably poisons their followers, not on the color of ones hat.  To confuse a position taken on careful analysis of doctrine and practice with a fashion faux pas is ludicrous, but such are the depths of the arguments with which the fundamental theosophist must contend.

Finally, to call a statement like "dugpas among Theosophists are a Constant Threat Against Whom We Must Maintain Constant Vigilance" a "horrendously paranoid notion" is to misunderstand theosophy completely.  Theosophists are continually vigilant against poisonous doctrines and practices.  To be other than vigilant is to allow oneself to accept unthinkingly ignorance.  I really don't understand statements like this.  Are we to accept any and all nonsense so as to be fair to all?  Who does that benefit?  Understanding is the only thing that leads to tolerance.  We fear what we don't know.  By not understanding what is and is not a selfish doctrine, we will continue to be mired in ignorance which will lead to violence and strife.  It is statements of this nature that are dangerous to theosophy if allowed to find root in the minds of theosophists.  It is not like dugpas are fewer today than they were at the time of Blavatsky, for proof just walk down the Metaphysics aisle in any bookstore in North America and look upon the dugpa literature.  If we accept statements like the above, theosophy will be sure to breed violence and hatred, just like a religion.  I trust that this is self-evident to theosophists. 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends
> 
> My views are:
> 
> The fingers were too fast.
> Here is a more full version.
> 
> Some people of this forum seems interested in knowing the following which I just came across while translating the below article...
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky said in "Reincarnations in Tibet"
> "The term "Dug-pa" in Tibet is deprecatory. They themselves pronounce it "Dög-pa" from the root to "bind" (religious binders to the old faith): while the paramount sect--the Gyeluk-pa (yellow caps)--and the people, use the word in the sense of "Dug-pa" mischief-makers, sorcerers. The Bhootanese are generally called Dug-pa throughout Tibet and even in some parts of Northern India.--ED."
> (Theosophist, March, 1882)
> http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/ReincarnationsInTibet.htm
> 
> 
> 1. Diamondway Dictionary says:
> __________________
> 
> * To "bind" = dogs pa
> {'dogs pa, btags pa, gdags pa, thogs} trans. v.; 1) to bind, fasten, tie, tie to; 2) to put on, wear (ornaments). 3) to apply / attach a label; impute, designate, label, name, refer to; 
> 
> ---
> Yet also...
> 
> * Poison = dug 
> poison, -ous, venomous; 
> 
> * Evil = gdug pa
> noxious; malevolent; vicious; dangerous, evil, poison, mischievous, dangerous, poisonous, harmful, viciousness, hostile, cruel, wicked, savage;
> 
> * Evil = gdug 
> adj. comp. of {gdug pa} syn {dug} dangerous, poisonous, hostile, malevolent, cruel, wicked, vicious, savage, deleterious, harmful, evil; dangerous, poisonous, hostile, malevolent, cruel, wicked, vicious, savage, deleterious, harmful, evil; 
> 
> - - -
> Druk pa = Brug pa
> 'brug pa Drukpa; sect of Lamas; 
> 
> 
> http://www.diamondway-buddhism.org
> 
> 
> 2. Nitartha Dictionary says:
> 
> dug pa - {zas kyis dug pa} poisoned by food [ry] 
> 
> dug pa - old coat or garment patched up and mended, dress, garment [JV] 
> 
> dug pa - 1) tattered clothing; 2) [arch] bad [IW] 
> 
> - - -
> 
> 
> brug pa - flow, stream out, gush forth, current, flux [JV] 
> 
> brug pa - 1) (Tha mi dad pa,, flow, stream, gush, fill naturally spread [water]; 2) [arch] gather together, pool 'dril ba [IW] 
> 
> brug pa - {brug pa, brug pa, brug pa} intr. v.; to flow, to stream, to gush [ry] 
> 
> http://www.nitartha.org/dictionary_search04.html
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight says:
> So "gdug pa" or "dug pa" is the proper origin it seems due to the fact that these words has the same meaning as H. P. Blavatsky used in the above with regard to the Gelug-pas.
> But some persons seem to trust Markham and others instead and use the term "brug pa". I am not.
> The Tibetans appearntly use "dogs-pa" referring to the Bhon religion according to H. P. Blavatsky. My take is that the Gelug-pas changed that by playing with words into "gdug pa" or rather "dug-pa" to make a fitting point.  The truth might be somewhere in between these words and the tendency to play with words. But maybe it is after all just a matter trivial semantics. 
> 
> David Reigle said in fact also:
> "For now, I will conclude with a quotation from Blavatsky indicating that she did believe there were among these orders dugpas in the sense in which she often used the term, as black magicians or "Brothers of the Shadow""
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/dugpas-drugpas-blavatsky.pdf
> 
> That is why I wrote this e-mail. Because H. P. Blavatsky continually refers to the Dugpas as Red Caps or the Bhon religion, and is never specific with regard to the use of Drukpas or brugpa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>