From the archives of some theosophical e-mail lists.

Subject: Re to Grigor
From: Gerald Schueler
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001

<< The notion of a timeless eternity is only Greek, and thus, western. >>

I am always amazed at your wild conclusions. Where in the world did you come up with that conclusion? Timelessness is an ancient idea found in mystical writings everywhere. Personally, I don't care all that much for Greek thought, and arrived at the conclusion from my own personal experiences and Eastern studies (which I assure you, were not Greek).

<< In Persia, a supreme attribute of God is time. In most forms of Vedanta, a supreme attribute of God is time. In Buddhism, time is continuum of a Buddha. >>

Time and gods go together because they both only exist in the manifested planes. According to modern science's Big Bang model, time, space, and matter all came into existence together. According to Theosophy, time and space begin with each manvantara and end with each pralaya. In short, time does NOT last forever.

<< While we are at it, space is fundamental too in Buddhism. Time is the dynamic rajas aspect while space is the tamas inertial frame of simultaneity and awareness is the sattva aspect >>

I have never come across these three except in Hinduism. Jerry S.

Subject: Response to Daniel
From: Gerald Schueler
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001

<<But are the two of you even talking about the same subjects? Sometimes your views are 180 degrees apart.>>

Well, yes they do seem to be, at times. I am still shaking my head at his insistance that Tibetans don't teach maya simply because he defines the term according to Hindu schools, but what can I say...

<<And unfortunately, little of your assumptions or background thinking on the subject is given - leaving the rest of your readers to scratch their heads and wonder where either one of you are coming from.>>

I have quoted several books as sources. I also use Tzongkapa's works a lot. Much of my understanding of Tibetan history is from Thurman (such as his The Central Pholosophy of Tibet) Wallace, Hopkins, Gyatso, and HH the Dali Lama, among others, and John Whitney Pettit gives an excellent, albeit highly technical, history of Nyingmapa school in his intro to Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen The Great Perfection, Wisdom, 1999. On page 74, Pettit states that "King Khri srong Ide btsan (reigned until 797) ... invited to Tibet the famous Bengali pandita Santaraksita and the Vajrayana master, Padmasambhava, who established the monastic/scholastic and tantric traditions, respectively." This is just one of many many sources on this subject which Grigor seems to want to disavow (maybe because Padmasambhava practiced and taught sex magic ala karmamudra??). While I can quote all kinds of sources, I doubt that few readers on this list will be inspired sufficiently to buy the books and read them. Nor should they, particularly. Grigor gets hung up on his history, and tends to try to discredit any sources that disagee with him, and of course this is hard to refute because history, as you know, is liquid and interpretative depending on who is doing the investigating.

<<This could be a more educative experience if a few more details were given instead of bare ipse dixits.>>

Its not enough to go into long discourses on Tibetan history. The teachings between the various schools and linages vary a bit, but are surprisingly concordant in any kind of broad-brush overview. Most of Tzongkapa's works are now in English for all to read and study, and I have found comparisons to HPB to be interesting, but sometimes also discouraging. Grigor is suggesting that it is only a matter of time until "links" between HPB and Tibetan Teachers are found. I cannot think that this is likely or even possible with what I have studied. In a past post, I mentioned three important topics in which Tibetan Masters and HPB's SD differ considerably. I cannot envision these gaps to ever be broached simply by looking for more Tibetan texts. The fact that Grigor, or anyone else, is "initiated" into one of a countless number of Tibetan linages carries no weight in the sense that such initiation doesn't garantee understanding. I see many a self-professed magus today who knows nothing at all about real magic, and so I have lost a lot of faith in degrees and titles but rather would focus on one's words.

Jerry S.