Re: RE: Response to Rich
Jan 15, 1999 02:31 AM
by Richard Taylor
In a message dated 1/15/99 12:30:09 AM, Jerry wrote:
> There are, according to the Tibetan schools,
> three such levels of Buddha's teachings. The
> lowest addresses the Sutras, which is where HPB got virtually all
> of her Buddhism (Olcott never got much higher than this anywhere that
> I can tell).
and Paul responded,
<<What "Tibetan schools" are these?>>
Are you asking because you don't know what a Tibetan school is, or are you
asking what the various Tibetan schools are? All four Tibetan schools
(Gelugspa, Sakyapa, Kargyudpa and Nyingmapa) hold to the Vajrayana ("Diamond
Vehicle") path of Buddhism. That's what makes Tibetan Buddhism so important,
and why HPB continually pointed to Tibetan Buddhism as the most pure.
All four Tibetan traditions hold to what Jerry stated. Furthermore, HPB bases
her ENTIRE SECRET DOCTRINE on quotes from commentaries to the Tibetan canon
which she spells Kiu-Te. For those who have been asleep the last few months
on this list, the Kiu-Te = Tibetan Tantras. That's what the word Kiu-Te
(rGyud-sDe) means. Don't take my word for it, read the book by David Reigle,
THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, OR THE TIBETAN TANTRAS (1983) available from Wizard's
Bookshelf, San Diego. I have their ordering address if anyone would like it.
<<Would you not agree that that which is public knowledge is, by default,
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
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?
I strongly doubt that simply being "esoteric" makes something "true." So
let's lay off the one-up-manship 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.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application