Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tl00004)

Rich,

I am sensing a great deal of frustration in your latest writing (BELOW).
I can certainly understand why.  But at the same time I think this
discussion
can provide an opportunity for everyone on the list to learn something new.
To possibly look at other points of view.

I believe Peter has raised some very good points in commenting on
TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA.  His impressions may
be wrong, etc. but they are still his impressions and deserve careful
consideration and a thoughtful reply.

In response to one of his comments, you wrote:

> This is PRECISELY the problem.  Since most Theosophists have not taken the
> time (or to be fair, have been able to take the time) to investigate the
> SOURCES of HPB's teachings, almost no Theosophist is able to understand
HPB's
> cautions.  From the vantage point of reading ONLY Blavatsky, one cannot
> distinguish white or black, green red or yellow.  It all looks
ritualistic,
> none of the symbolism is understood, and then of course the poor student
> stands ripe for abuse of all kinds, from greedy gurus to self-deception.
> Tantras do NOT deal with sex, or with the lower chakras for that matter --
> but with the supreme state which transforms the impure into the pure.
> Nothing could be more Theosophical

Rich, in your reply to Peter, you seem to be telling him (in an indirect
way)
that his impressions are wrong.  But you don't give any detailed feedback
as to why those impressions might be wrong.  What is he not taking into
account, etc.?

You go on to say that:

> Tantras do NOT deal with sex, or with the lower chakras for that matter --

And yet this is exactly Peter's impression after reading the Mullin
translation.
And I must say that is also my impression.

And I've reread for about the 8th time the Cozart book and I get the same
impression.  And both Mullin and Cozart admit themselves that the tantras
under consideration deal with hatha yoga and physical sex.

Now if Peter's and my impressions are wrong (due to whatever) please
explain to us what we are missing and overlooking. You need not write
a treatise but some detail would help in our learning experience.

HPB and her Teachers give warnings about hatha yoga, pranayama
and "sexual" tantric techniques.  This message is pretty clear over a number
of
years in both HPB's writings and in the Mahatma Letters.

They must be warning their readers about something.  What were they
telling their readers to avoid?????  Maybe there are different kinds of
pranayama and the pranayamas mentioned in Cozart's book are not the
same as the kind HPB and KH warned about.  Etc. etc.  You have
not said anything up this aspect of the subject.

I would suggest that most theosophists reading the Mullin and
Cozart books would agree with Peter's impressions.  I'm not
saying that because a majority might agree that therefore those
impressions are right.  Maybe those impressions are ill-founded.
What I want to know is why you seem to insist that Peter's (and my)
impressions are wrong, misguided, etc.  How can we ever correct
our misguide views without some substantive input?

Since you have mentioned David Reigle at least once in these discussions on
Tantras, etc.  I will tell you that I have discussed all of these subjects
with him
in some detail in the last year or so.

I don't want to put words in his mouth.  I may certainly have misunderstood
some of his points and may possibly misrepresent his views.  But here goes:

I believe it is his contention that the Gelugpa tradition is NOT necessarily
the esoteric view of HPB's Masters.  In fact, there is a orthodoxy in
the Gelugpa religion just as one finds an orthodoxy in all other religions
of the
world.  And that over the centuries since Tsongkhapa's death a literalism
has
become predominant in the Gelugpa tradition.  For example, the Gelugpa lamas
believe in reincarnation of humans into animal forms.  They literally
believe this.
As far as I know this is not a tenet of Blavatsky's teachings.  Many if not
most
Gelugpa lamas believe that a "karmamudra" means literally a real physical
woman
who becomes the tantric partner of a lama.  But could this "karmamudra" have
other meanings symbolical in nature.  Could there be other valid
interpretations
of this word?  Various passages in HPB's writings would suggest these other
alternative interpretations and meanings.  I believe David Reigle is of the
opinion
that the literal meaning given by most Gelugpas is not valid and certainly
is
not in accordance with the esoteric teachings of Blavatsky and her teachers.

David Reigle also questions Mullin's translation of the Tibetan word for
"karmamudra."
You would have to discuss this with Reigle to get his exact view and
argument.

Again I stress that I may be oversimplifying Reigle's view.  Take Reigle's
name
out of the discussion and I think the arguments I just advanced are worthy
of
some thought and consideration.

Just as many Blavatsky students believe that certain Theosophical writers
soon after
HPB's death misinterpreted her teachings and even changed and deleted
material in
her published and unpublished writings, could not this have happened to
Tsong-Kha-Pa's writings?  Could not disciples and followers in the years
after
Tsong-Kha-pa's death altered his writings?  Could they have misunderstood
and
even literalised many of his teachings?  I'm not saying that this happened
but surely
it is a consideration to ponder on.  If it happened with HPB's writings and
teachings,
why not with Tsong-Kha-Pa's?

Rich, I would appreciate it if you would deal with Peter's and my
impressions which
apparently you think are unwarranted.  Here is a chance ofor valuable
dialogue.  Maybe
we can all learn something from this give and take??!!

Rich, I must agree with you that it is also my impression that Dallas and a
number of
other students who have written about the Tantras apppear not to know a
great
deal about the Tantras---Hindu or Buddhist.  Here I will state that this
may be an MISimpression on my part.  In any case, I wish Dallas and others
would
read some of the books on Tantra recommended by both Rich and Nicholas.
Such reading can only expand one's understanding of the subject and possibly
help one to understand and appreciate HPB's own words on these subjects.
For all I know Dallas and the others may have already studied the
recommended items!!
Sorry if I've offended anyone.  I'm just trying to communicate my
impressions which
are of course subject to correction and further clarification.

Daniel