[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

copy sent at your request to solve problem!

Feb 15, 1994 08:34 PM

(note the comment from in brackets [] -- jem)
    [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

-->To Paul Johnson
-->from Terry Hobbes
You write:
>One could hardly write as voluminously as HPB on so many
>complex subjects without some errors. She
>freely admitted that her work contained mistakes and never
>tried to present herself as the absolute authority which many
>would make of her today.

I believe most serious students of HPB's writings would agree
with your statements but some of us do consider her an "authority",
no not an absolute one, but as someone who knows what she is
talking about.

You also write:

>While Terry's historical perspective is helpful in placing
>post)HPB developments in context, why stop there?  Putting HPB
>in context of the sources from whom she learned takes us back a
>step further. Why accept hers as the final word on Kabbalah,
>Masonry, Vedanta, etc. when each of those traditions supplies
>us with voluminous sources which existed long prior to her?  I
>suggest that going back to the Source be understood as a
>direction, not a goal.

Yes, there is truth to what you say. And the serious student of
HPB's writings will want to go back to these sources and try to
gain some knowledge and insight about these numerous sources.
For example, in *The Secret Doctrine* HPB mentions and quotes from
Zoroastrian sources and teachings. Two good books on Zoroastriasm
are written by Mary Boyce:  *Textual Sources for the Study of
Zoroastrianism* (1984) and *Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs
and Practices (1979). We could multiply examples in other
religious,occult and mystical traditions.

Yet do you accept the Masters and *their* occult knowledge as one
of her Sources?  In *The Secret Doctrine* she says:  "The sole
advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she
need not resort to personal speculations and theories. For this
work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by
more advanced students. . . . ." Volume I, p. vii

And further on in the same volume, pp. 272)273:  "The Secret
Doctrine is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages. . . . . . the
system in question is no fancy of one or several isolated is the uninterrupted record covering thousands of
generations of Seers whose respective experiences were made to test
and to verify the traditions passed orally by one early race to
another, of the teachings of higher and exalted being, who watched
over the childhood of Humanity. . . .for long ages, the `Wise Men"
of the Fifth Race. . . had passed their lives *in learning* . . .by
checking, testing, and verifying in every department of nature the
traditions of old by the independent visions of great adepts;
i.e., men who have developed and perfected their physical, mental,
psychic, and spiritual organisations to the utmost posssible degree
No vision of one adept was accepted till it was checked and
confirmed by the visions ) ) ) so obtained as to stand as
independent ) ) ) of other adepts, and by centuries of

HPB repeats this basic theme in numerous places throughout her
writings. Two of these sages of the Orient, two of these adepts
were known by their initiatory names of Koot Hoomi and Morya. It
is from these adepts that she transmits "The Secret Doctrine"
teachings. Here is what these adepts say in *The Mahatma Letters*:

"We tell you what we know, *for we are made to learn it through
personal experience*. . . ." p. 128, 3rd ed

"The recognition of the higher phases of man's being on this planet
is not to be attained by mere acquirement of knowledge. Volumes of
the most perfectly constructed information cannot reveal to man
life in the higher regions. One has to get a knowledge of
spiritual facts by personal experience and from actual observation.
. . ." p. 64

"Life. . . ., the greatest problem within the ken of human
conception, is a mystery that the greatest of your men of Science
will never solve. In order to be correctly comprehended, it has to
be studied in the entire series o fits manifestations, otherwise it
can never be, not only fathomed, but even comprehended in its
easiest form ) ) ) life, as a state of *being* on this earth. It
can never be grasped so long as it is studied separately and apart
from universal life. To solve the great problem one has to become
an occultist; to analyze and experience with it personally in all
its phases, as life on earth, life beyond the limit of physical
death, mineral, vegetable, animal and spiritual life; life in
conjunction with concrete matter as well a life present in the
imponderable atom." p. 155

Speaking of the "Tree of Knowledge", K.H. writes:

"This `tree' is in our safe)keeping, entrusted to us by the Dhyan
Chohans, the protectors of our Race and the Trustees for those that
are coming. Try to understand the allegory . . . . .Every race had
its adepts; and with every new race, we are allowed to give them
out as much of our knowledge as the men of that race deserve"  p.
154 This whole passage deserves to be carefully studied.

". . . these subjects (metaphysical) are only partly for
understanding. A higher faculty belonging to the higher life must
see, and it is truly impossible to force it upon one's
understanding ) ) )  merely in words. One must see with his
spiritual eye, hear with is Dharmakayic ear, feel with the
sensation of his *Ashta)vijnana* (spiritual `I'), before he can
comprehend this doctrine fully . . . ."  p. 197.
"Yourself [AP Sinnett} and Mr. Hume have received now more
information about the A[rhat?].E[soteric?]. Philosophy than was
ever given out to *non)initiates* within my knowledge."  p. 112

K.H. and M and other members of the Occult Fraternity have this
knowledge (personal, immediate, and transcendental, etc.)  Do you
believe she transmitted Knowledge from that Source?

Many of the Radhasomai Masters and followers consider the Masters
of HPB to be "lower" Masters, whereas the Radhasomai masters are
much more spiritually developed. See the section on "Theosophy" in
*The Path of the Masters* by Julian Johnson, published in the
1930s. Julian Johnson became a disciple of Sawan Singh, the great
Beas master. Even the Beas Master the late Charan Singh, who died
only several years ago, considered "hidden Masters" of Theosophy of
little use, especially when you could have the "Lord" incarnated in
flesh and blood in a Radhamsomai Master such as he himself.

You write:

>She [HPB] admits straightforwardly that her knowledge of the
>subject [Tibetan Buddhism] is quite limited ) ) as is shown by her
>use of the term dugpa to identify Black magicians. Any Tibetan
>will tell you that the Gelugpa regard the redhat (unreformed)
>Buddhists with respect and by no means think they are some evil
>with which the good guys are engaged in some cosmic struggle.

>Another example is her reading of the doctrine of the three kayas,
>which again any scholar of Tibetan Buddhism will regard as
>misleading ) ) suggesting that the three vestures are somehow
>distinct alternative when in fact they are simultaneous realities.

I called one of my theosophical correspondents and he in turn
called David Reigle, a theosophist who is knowledgeable on the
Sanskrit and Tibetan languages as well as Hindu and Buddhist
subjects. David was asked for his input on the "dugpa" term, on
your comment about the "Gelugpa regard for the Redhats" and your
comment on the 3 Kayas.

David Reigle basically said (Please Note:  I am paraphrasing his
comments and adding my 2 cents worth. If anyone has questions they
can address them to David Reigle. I don't know his address but I
believe Jerry H)E has it!)

1. When Paul Johnson writes "any scholar of Tibetan Buddhism will
regard" HPB's "reading of the doctrine of the three Kayas" as
"misleading", Johnson is implying that there is total agreement
among all Buddhist scholars on this subject of the kayas. This is
not true. There are conflicting interpretations of the "kaya
doctrine" by various scholars. Even in the Buddhist texts, there
are various views concerning the kayas. At lease one of the texts
lists 4 kayas instead of the three traditional ones. One Vietnamese
scholar of Buddhism told Reigle that HPB's comments on the 3
kayas (as given in her notes to *The Voice of the Silence* are
quite insightful and (in his expert opinion) impressive.

2. When Paul Johnson writes "any Tibetan will tell you that the
Gelugpa regard the redhat (unreformed) Buddhists with  respect . .
. ." this statement in itself may be somewhat misleading. It is
true that the current Dalai Lama has worked over the years to start
what we might call a "fraternization' movement with the other non*Gelugpa sects of
Tibetan Buddhism, but if we look at the historical
record of the last several centuries we will find that the Gelugpas
had general, widespread "prejudice" and even rivalry *against* the
Redhats. In a recently published history of Tibet in English by a
Tibetan scholar, it is documented that there was actual warfare
between the Red Hats and the Gelugpas in the 15th and 16th
centuries. The Redhat branch of the Karma)pa struggled for power
with the gelugpas. If Paul Johnson had interviewed Gelugpa monks
in the 1870s, he might have found the monks somewhat "negative" or
"prejudical" against the Redhats. All of this should be taken into
consideration when assessing what HPB said about the Redhats.

3. Now to the word "dugpa" ))it is true that "dugpa" ('Brug)pa)
technically refers to a sub)sect of the Bka')brgyud)pa (Kagyurpa)
school of Tibetan Buddhism. The Dugpa sect over the centuries
became the main school of T. Buddhism in Bhutan. This Redhat
school cannot be considered as a school of Black Magicians. But
HPB writes in (*Collected Writings* Volume 4, p. 9):  "The term
`Dug)pa' in Tibet [among the Gelugpas?] is deprecatory. They
themselves pronounce it `Dog)pa' from the root `to bind' (religious
binders to the old faith); while the paramount sect ) ) ) the
Gelukpas (yellow caps) ))) and the people, use the word in the
sense of Dug)pa *mischief*)makers, *sorcerers*. The Bhutanese are
generally called Dug)pa throughout Tibet and even in some parts of
Northern India."

In *The Theosophical Glossary* HPB gives more information:

"From that century [14th] century, however, and after the rigid
laws imposed upon the *Gelukpas* (yellow caps) and the general
reform and purification of Buddhism (or Lamaism), 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."

And in an article on "Elementals", see HPB's *Theosophical
Articles*, volume II, p. 146, HPB says:

"This class of spirits are called the `terrestrial,' or `earthly
elementaries, in contradistinction to the other classes. . . .But
there is another and still more dangerous class. In the East, they
are known as the `Brothers of the Shadow,' living men possessed by
the earth-bound elementaries; at times - their *masters* but ever
in the long run falling victims to these terrible beings. In
Sikkim and Tibet they are called Dug-pas (red-caps), in
contradistinction to the Geluk)pas (Yellow)caps), to which latter
most of the adepts belong. And here we must beg the reader not to
misunderstand us. For though the whole of Butan and Sikkim belongs
to the old religions of the Bhons, now known generally as the Dug*pas, we do not mean
to have it understood that the whole of the
population is possessed, *en masse*, or that they are all
sorcerers. Among them are found as good men as anywhere else, and
we speak above only of the *elite* of their Lamaseries, of a
nucleus of priests, "devil)dancers," and fetish worshippers, whose
dreadful and mysterious rites are utterly unknown to the greater
part of the population. Thus there are two classes of these
terrible `Brothers of the Shadow' ) ) ) the *living* and the
*dead*. . . ."

Notice that HPB says "the *elite* of their Lamaseries", "a nucleus
of priests" which means to me that even most of the priesthood of
these specific Redhat Lamaseries are not to be considered Black

Paul, do you believe in the existence of Black Magicians, brothers
of the Shawdow?  The student of HPB's works needs to carefully
study everything HPB says about Black Magicians and Brothers of the
Shadow before jumping to conclusions. One needs to study about
"lost souls", elementaries, Avitchi, the Planet of Death,
elementals such as dakinis, Mamo Chohans and other rather
"unpleasant" subjects that New Age students would never dream even

So even according to HPB, if you read her carefully, she seems to
say that the word "dugpa" has several meanings.

For those interested in studying relevant matter to what HPB writes
about on Black Magic, Tantric magic and other "gruesome" subjects,
the student should read Benjamin Walker's 1974 work *Beyond the
Body:  The Human Double and the Astral Plane, pp. 141)142; also
consult Teachings of Tibetan Yoga, translated and annotated by
Garma C.C. Chang. A Kagyu meditation manual called *The Six Yogas
of Naropa* is translated in this book. Also Francis King's
*Sexuality, Magic and Perversion*. Also Agehananda Bharati's book
on the Hindu Tantras

Items 1 and 2 above were based on David Reigle's comments and they
were paraphrased and added to. I hope I did justice to David's
views. Please write him for more details if interested.

Terry Hobbes

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application