Theos-Talk Archives (April 2010 Message tt00027)

Agreed.

What organisation are you a member of?


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: robert_b_macd 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:11 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Correction: The term Dug-pa according to H. P. Blavatsky


    

  Dear Morten,

  The assumption that the e-mail was addressed to you is fair, although in truth it was addressed to anyone interested and yours was simply the last post on the subject on this forum that I could find. The irony of course is that your post was well researched and well reasoned and had nothing to do with the focus of my arguments.

  That being said, thank you for your response.

  You write:
  > In connection with this I would say, that the Theosophical Societies today aught to have more emphasis on the psychological aspects of their Constitutions and how the aims are formulated. The comparatively new science on psychological indoctrination, sects, cults, brainwashing, spin in various groups - religious ones included versus theosophy aught, as I see it, to be part of the theosophical societies aims. I find this to be important. This is one reason why I recommend the books by Idries Shah as a comparative study to the theosophical teachings. Any comments on that?

  I really don't have much to say not having studied Sufism. On the larger question, theosophy embraces more than the modern writings of HPB and the Masters. Certainly, your contributions in this forum drawing in Sufi references have always been well taken, often giving us further insight into ourselves and theosophy.

  > 5.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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."
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > I say, no they where not. Please seek to understand why I say so. I have recently shown in another e-mail to this forum, that the Main objects of the Theosophical Society was changed after 1891. They were changed with reagard to how the Theosophical Society related itself to political activity. And later a Messiah in the Flesh, discovered by CWL and promoted by Annie Besant - REPLACED - the cornerstone for the World-Religion for humanity of the future (well until the alleged Messiah so to speak resigned). And TS Adyar allowed a Male-Chauvanistic Sect (called LCC) to be promoted on the compounds. But, this does not remove the fact, that good deeds was and have been performed within the TS despite these events. Luckily, or rather due to Karmic patterns, the teachings live on here at Theos-talk and in a few branches scattered around the globe; some of them, the genuine esoteric Gelug-pas and Shankara branches are still here. Some groups are in fact quite non-physical. - One once said: Wisdom teachings are scarce, that is why they are valuable.

  Where you say "no they were not", I assume you were referring to my statement that "the doctrines of the original program were consistently on point." By the original program, I mean the program as laid down by HPB and the Masters, a program that underwent some fine-tuning up to the time of Blavatsky's death. What came after through Beasant and others really had little to do with Theosophy, regardless of whether mixed in with all that confusion, some good theosophical work was done. Perhaps though, I miss your point. I certainly have no objections to what you write.

  > 6.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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. "
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > I say: No we do not. At least not in the sense that, when speaking of TS, there is not a clear difference between supporting the three issues dogmatism, politics, and rejecting to be primarily in sympathy we the first object of the TS as formulated in 1875-1891 - to create a Universal Brotherhood of Mankind, and comparative studying with emphasis on the Eastern Doctrines - and then the opposite. It is when one or more of these three issues, theosophically speaking, are deviated from, we find us in a THEM or US situation. Each Scholar or personality who can find deviations from these three issues (as something primary) to be helpful to mankind are not really ready to understand that altruism and compassion has something to do with the meaning of life. At least not on the level sought for when the aims of TS is to have any value.

  That perhaps all the major TS Societies of today are dogmatic and hence religious in nature I cannot disagree. Belonging to a completely independent group that treasures the full autonomy of its members, that is not my experience. We stick to the original program as set down by HPB and the Masters and we slowly grow, year after year, attracting quality new members. Our members can make their views known within our study group, there can be vigorous debate, all because we have some understanding of the First Object of the Society, and consequently look upon this as mutual help in our own growth and those around us. Your point is well taken.

  > 7.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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"."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Yes. But "often" is not always is it? - Maybe the one who responds find it more easy to reply with a quote, than writing it all by themselves. It effectively saves time, and shows that others have thought the same, and that one agrees with them. To disagree with such a person cannot be a problem in theosophical groups, because a part of the theosophical aims are comparative studying. So there is no problem in that. - It all sort of boils down to, that one cannot merely assume about another persons motives - and then claim to know about them. Do you not agree?

  I think we always assume the best motive when dealing with others until they prove otherwise. To explore the quote further with the theosophist is reasonable, and if he or she lacks some depth, then at least they know where they come up short so that they can read and think further on the subject.
  > 8.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Why? And how do we know whether they do not have the same grasp of the doctrine?
  > 
  > It is just like saying I want to learn about Manavantars, Rounds, astrology, elementals etc. and I want to learn about it five o'Clock on saturdays. And the teachers reply will be: Not so fast, young man. I will only teach you according to time, place, people and circumstances. If you reject this view, I might refuse to teach you!
  > Allright?

  That is all part of the process, for no matter how much I think I know there are further depths to be explored. We start where we can and learn what we don't know, and then try to address our shortcomings, only to find out that we still don't know as much as we thought. It is all part of the cycle.

  Thank you.

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Robert Bruce and friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > Now, Robert Bruce I assume that your e-mail also was adressed to me.
  > And I find, that a reply would be a good idea.
  > 
  > 1.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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." "
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Yes. First I will have to say that exchanging messages at a forum are a limited kind of communication. And that if some persons want to start a thread by limiting a discussion by saying 'no internal references', while doing it on a forum aiming at creating a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity - then it seems a strange remark to make by the person in question. Why limit exchanges in that manner?
  > After all, we do not go and say similarily: When you enter TS Adyar compund your first seven steps should be performed jumping on one leg, do we?
  > :-)
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 
  > 2.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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"."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > My answer to this will be a long reply.
  > Yes. First of all I will say, that the word Dug-pa or Dog-pa was not really invented by H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters. Secondly it was already prevalent in Tibet among Gelug-pas about those whom Blavatsky named "Red Caps", Bhons, or Bhutanese. So K. Paul Johnson is not quite on the mark here calling it "harmful" while sort of bashing HPB and Master. If one seek other sources than those who live in the area, and mainly rely on Scholars, one will most often find the results to be of little use theosophically speaking. Scholars are most often not understanding esoterical teachings. Even so most of them continously claim they do. Quality scholars are rare even today.
  > 
  > A few quotes so to later make a better point on this might be a good idea.
  > 
  > H. P. Blavatsky wrote in her TS Glossary, 1892:
  > "Bhons (Tib.). The followers of the old reHgion of the Aborigines of 
  > Tibet ; of pre-buddhistic temples and ritualism ; the same as Dugpas, "red caps'*, though the lailer appellation usually applies only to sorcerers. "
  > http://www.archive.org/details/theosophicalglo00meadgoog
  > 
  > H. P. Blavatsky wrote in her TS Glossary, 1892:
  > "Brothers of the Shadow. A name given by the Occultists to Sorcerers, 
  > and especially to the Tibetan DugpaSy of whom there are many in the 
  > Bhon sect of the Red Caps (Dugpa), The word is applied to all prac- 
  > titioners of black or left hand magic. "
  > http://www.archive.org/details/theosophicalglo00meadgoog
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Here we see, that H. P. Blavatsky coined the word Dug-pa with MANY in the both Bhon sect of the Red Caps.
  > 
  > H. P. Blavatsky wrote in her TS Glossary, 1892:
  > "Dugpas (Tib. J, Lit., '* Red Caps," a sect in Tibet. Before the advent 
  > of Tsong-ka-pa in the fourteenth century, the Tibetans, whose Buddhism 
  > had deteriorated and been dreadfully adulterated with the tenets of the 
  > old Bhon religion, - were all Dugpas. From that century, however, and 
  > after the rigid laws imposed upon the Gelukpas (yellow caps) and the 
  > general reform and purification of Buddhism (or Lamaisni), the Dugpas 
  > have given themselves over more than ever to sorcery, immorality, and 
  > drunkenness. Since then the word Dugpa has become a synonym of 
  > ** sorcerer ", ** adept of black magic " and everything vile. There are 
  > few, if any, Dugpas in Eastern Tibet, but they congregate in Bhutan, 
  > Sikkim, and the borderlands generally."
  > http://www.archive.org/details/theosophicalglo00meadgoog
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Here we se that H. P. Blavatsky did not coin the word Dug-pa for those who were ordinary humans going by with their daily work. H. P. Blavatsky also said that the Dugpa has become a synonym of 
  > ** sorcerer ", ** adept of black magic " and everything vile. And this was how she and others used it in her time. And this is therefore carried on by theosophists. - Now, of course it is interesting what other learned members of the human family has to say about this. But here we are dealing with theospophical terminiology and shcolarly terminology.
  > 
  > So far I will have to conclude that K. Paul Johnson, who more than one time clearly (wellmeaningly no doubt?) have promoted a negative view of H. P. Blavatsky and her doctrines, - to a certain extend is wrong in saying that it is MERELY a talk about "Enemy Other" about respectable other non-Gelug-pas sects. The theosophical teachings operate with Manvantaras and Parabrahm - and also with the fact that evil persons can and will change, sometimes even after ten incarnations. Let us face the fact, that Evil is something quite real, and that the opposite is so as well. Altruism and the Law of Karma is the obstacle to relate to. We will reap what we sow.
  > 
  > Of course I will give K. Paul Johnson and others the credit that there really - are - hardworking Seekers among the Red Caps, who are doing very well esoterically speaking! But HPB did according to the above quotes not say the opposite, and when young theosophical Seekers are allowed to enter a theosophical group and become leaders of it without knowing the doctrines, that is just an expression of ignorance and nothing else. In the old days they were asked to step down or where kicked out of the TS, (because they needed something else first). Dr. Gerard Encausse was sort of an example in HPB's days. Such things can hardly be avoided, because some persons know more than others. Beginners need to learn to use non-dead-letter interpretations of books and teachings. The TS and other groups with the same aims will become an empty carcass if the leaders allow anyone to be leaders of the various groups despite the overall aims of the Society. The question is of course where are these groups today?
  > 
  > How much are we all able to know and learn, we may ask? 
  > And are the existence of Masters therefore more than likekly not a fairytale? - We answer, everything, to the first question and yes we confirm they do exist to the second, and say that we Know and not only believe these things. Others will have to find out what level of Knowledge and wisdom one is capeable of.
  > 
  > Yet, the truth is that when reading most of H. P. Blavatsky's texts one get the view, that most of the Buddhists in her time was exoteric in nature and doctrine. Today things have changed. In some quarters for the better, and in others for the worse. Yet, this does not remove the fact, that those who hold the real keys to the esoteric Buddhistic teachings are the esoteric Gelug-pas through their efforts and Tsong-Kha-pa and the Dzyan Stanzas etc., this even today. Even today only a few among the so-called "Red-Caps" (Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakhya) are on the real esoterical track in their teachings. (A part of the reason why is shown in BCW, vol. XIV, p. 370-453). Buddhism without a Synthesis teaching can today hardly be really helpful to humanity. I do not at all mind K. Paul Johnson calling other groups respectable (or perhaps wellmeaning) - but so were the Spiritualists called by others and themselves in H. P. Blavatsky's time even if they were dead wrong in their activities. I would say that no real theosophist (or almost no theosophist) will find most parts of Scientology to be really respectable today, because of the many scandals in that sect, and nor the most staunch politically entangled Alice A. Bailey groups. Nor a dead-drunk Kagyu Buddhist wearing several prominent robes in the sect of the notorious Kadampas; Damodar mentioned the Kadmapas. Blavatsky used the word "mischief-makers" about the Dug-pas. And what is it to be respectable?
  > 
  > In connection with this I would say, that the Theosophical Societies today aught to have more emphasis on the psychological aspects of their Constitutions and how the aims are formulated. The comparatively new science on psychological indoctrination, sects, cults, brainwashing, spin in various groups - religious ones included versus theosophy aught, as I see it, to be part of the theosophical societies aims. I find this to be important. This is one reason why I recommend the books by Idries Shah as a comparative study to the theosophical teachings. Any comments on that?
  > 
  > I find that K. Paul Johnson calling theosophists - paranoid - is not quite an real attempt to describe what happened in H. P. Blavatsky's time in the Vatican and in Bhutan and the nearby areas, and what is in fact going on today. When Master K.H. go so far as calling the Salvation Army promoters of Black Magic, I see no problems with such a definition. - I rather find it paranoid to reject the idea of reincarnation without examining this doctrine compared with other futile and quite stupid attempts. There are what we call - promoters of Heart-flow and Wisdom, and on the other hand there are promoters of "spiritual" (say rather emotional) Excitement or for instance Seances and "ghosts knocking under tables". They are sometimes named "money-eaters", or "seance ghost-defilers" of a notorious Spiritualist Church, and personalities of the political-low-ethics, or mischief-makers. The fact that a number of groups and their followers in particular confuse emotional excitement with Heart-flow and visdom can hardly be avoided in these days of human evolution.
  > I repeat, that I will give K. Paul Johnson and others the credit that there really are hardworking Seekers among the Red Caps and others, who are doing very well esoterically speaking.
  > As Blavatsky and Master said, there are initiates in non-theosophical groups. And I know this to be true.
  > 
  > But what is it after all to be - respectable?
  > 
  > Master K. H. wrote, so it is said:
  > "It is impossible to worship both sides, - the male and female of nature, - at once; one or the other must predominate. Only by following the absolute, sexless Unity, can the white path be trodden. Hence the necessity for chastity. The occult and the physical must never be mixed up. It is absolutely necessary to concentrate on one or the other. The tendency naturally is to Black Magic, and that is why several years of training are necessary to cut away every sort of prejudice before power can be entrusted to you. Before you can become an occultist you have to give up every prejudice, every liking, every feeling of preference for one thing or another. The adept must entirely separate himself from his personality. He must say, I am a power! It is easy to fall into Black Magic. A black magician prepares to do mischief without giving a thought to whether it will harm others. He is essentially selfish, for he works for a thing he personally loves. Apparent unselfishness may be really selfishness. A deed of kindness done with partiality may become evil, viz., by stirring up animosity in the minds of others. It is necessary when acting to lose all sense of identity and become an abstract power. There is good and evil in every point in the universe, and if one works however indirectly for one's own partiality, one becomes to that extent a black magician. The opposite of Justice is partiality. When a man uses the powers of Nature indiscriminatingly, with partiality, and with no regard to justice, it is Black Magic. But to help a sick person is not Black Magic, but no personal preference must guide you. Like a blackleg, a black magician acts on certain knowledge. Magic is power over the forces of nature, viz., the Salvation Army by hypnotizing people and making them psychically drunk with excitement, is Black Magic. Bismarck and Beaconsfield are types of black magicians."
  > http://blavatskyarchives.com/koothoomicommentaries.htm
  > 
  > 
  > So great singers of the Great ("salvations army") Invocation is not really, what we are looking for within the original aims of the TS. And neither reincarnating "Xenu-business speculators" with dollarsigns in their eyes.
  > 
  > Let me say, that I am not seeking to create scapegoats here in this e-mail, I am just seeking to make people aware of that there is a difference between Theosophical wisdom teachings on the one hand, and sorcery, mischief-making, political-low-ethics-theosophy and money-greed etc. on the other.
  > 
  > 
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 3.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > ""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"."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Yes, but theosophical fundamentalists are perhaps not attacking in the sense of the word, but rather seeking an exchange of views, where their own view might be tested. By this either they or the opponent will learn. This is not something new. This happened in the Upanishads, where they gather around the fire and exchanged views about the philosophy of inner Wisdom. It happened in Shankaras time, where he held this same doctrine in high regard. Ammonious Saccas, H. P. Blavatsky and Olcott did the same. So be encouraged to study and exchange views so to verify the teachings and so to learn. And - act - for the sake of humanity and all life. - If there are something as problematic as "theosophical fundamentalist" in the negative sense, they forget that the main object with the thesophical teachings is to create a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. This can however not be promoted, if their betterknowing opponents only are willing to reject all opposition and listen to themselves - and not listen to what those who seek to help them are saying.
  > 
  > I will say:
  > Those Seekers after Truth who need to rest, aught to go and rest, and not seek exchanges on theosophical teachings.
  > Those Seekers after Truth who seek a debate, where they can be given THE attention they want for themselves and their Ego, instead of primarily seeking the original theosophical aims, they might need to go somewhere else. Because a theosophist will not always give them what they crave and desire.
  > 
  > Even so I would say that theosophists are practical, and they do care, that we all rest in the "comfort zone" as far as it is spiritually needed. Yet, that is not always the same as what the beginner theosophist wants and desires. To be a genuine wise theosophist is an ideal, and each of us can only work to accomlish it.
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 
  > 4.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Yes. Teachings aught to be adapted to time, place, people and circumstances. And this H. P. Blavatsky also mentioned from time to time. - Yet saying that all the Dugpas have disappeared from Bhutan I will not. And not forgetting about similar problems with "Salvation-Hindus", I am not saying that a number of the "Red Caps" are not opreating similar to the (Black Magic) Salvation Army pictured by Master K.H. in the above. - This is perhaps the difference. - And when some wellmeaning theosophists or scholars say that the Salvation Army, the Spiritualist Seancers, the Red Caps in general are respectable - we say fiddlestick, and disagree. Yet we do compassionately care. - Yet, as we say, handsome is who handsome does no matter what Hat of fashion they wear.
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 
  > 5.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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."
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > I say, no they where not. Please seek to understand why I say so. I have recently shown in another e-mail to this forum, that the Main objects of the Theosophical Society was changed after 1891. They were changed with reagard to how the Theosophical Society related itself to political activity. And later a Messiah in the Flesh, discovered by CWL and promoted by Annie Besant - REPLACED - the cornerstone for the World-Religion for humanity of the future (well until the alleged Messiah so to speak resigned). And TS Adyar allowed a Male-Chauvanistic Sect (called LCC) to be promoted on the compounds. But, this does not remove the fact, that good deeds was and have been performed within the TS despite these events. Luckily, or rather due to Karmic patterns, the teachings live on here at Theos-talk and in a few branches scattered around the globe; some of them, the genuine esoteric Gelug-pas and Shankara branches are still here. Some groups are in fact quite non-physical. - One once said: Wisdom teachings are scarce, that is why they are valuable.
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 
  > 6.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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. "
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > I say: No we do not. At least not in the sense that, when speaking of TS, there is not a clear difference between supporting the three issues dogmatism, politics, and rejecting to be primarily in sympathy we the first object of the TS as formulated in 1875-1891 - to create a Universal Brotherhood of Mankind, and comparative studying with emphasis on the Eastern Doctrines - and then the opposite. It is when one or more of these three issues, theosophically speaking, are deviated from, we find us in a THEM or US situation. Each Scholar or personality who can find deviations from these three issues (as something primary) to be helpful to mankind are not really ready to understand that altruism and compassion has something to do with the meaning of life. At least not on the level sought for when the aims of TS is to have any value.
  > They need to go elsewhere first. They will either join one of the many sects, which might be good and might not, and which suit their taste or not yet liberated ego - or live their lives like atheists. That is why we recommend that people study first and prepare themselves. Comparative studying about the meaning of life is recommended, and we recommend empahsis on the ancient Eastern Doctrines.
  > However not all theosophically inclined aught ot be a member of a genuine theosophical organisation or even its esoteric section. It all depends --- on time, place, people and cirsumnstances - karmic patterns as well. We, or perhaps rather the Masters (which we aught not to antrophomorphize) employ agents in other groups, you know.
  > 
  > The Esoteric Section run by HPB had the original aim to be totally independant of the TS, so not to Boss it around so to speak. This Esoteric Section were for Seekers who had gained what we call actual Knowledge about the Path. Not all were allowed to enter, yet in fact none aught to be rejected if compassionately possible.
  > 
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 
  > 7.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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"."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Yes. But "often" is not always is it? - Maybe the one who responds find it more easy to reply with a quote, than writing it all by themselves. It effectively saves time, and shows that others have thought the same, and that one agrees with them. To disagree with such a person cannot be a problem in theosophical groups, because a part of the theosophical aims are comparative studying. So there is no problem in that. - It all sort of boils down to, that one cannot merely assume about another persons motives - and then claim to know about them. Do you not agree?
  > 
  > - - - - - - - 
  > 
  > 
  > 8.
  > Robert Bruce wrote:
  > "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."
  > 
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > Why? And how do we know whether they do not have the same grasp of the doctrine?
  > 
  > It is just like saying I want to learn about Manavantars, Rounds, astrology, elementals etc. and I want to learn about it five o'Clock on saturdays. And the teachers reply will be: Not so fast, young man. I will only teach you according to time, place, people and circumstances. If you reject this view, I might refuse to teach you!
  > Allright?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > These were just my views.
  > But maybe, I have misunderstood something.
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: robert_b_macd 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:08 AM
  > Subject: Theos-World Re: Correction: The term Dug-pa according to H. P. Blavatsky
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 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]
  > >
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]