Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Dharmakara
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Dharmakara »

Aemilius wrote:
Dharmakara wrote:In all honesty, I find it hard to mention Blavatsky in the same breath with Buddhism, long enough the Bodhisattva ideal. How does one reconcile some of her disturbing statements from The Secret Doctrine?

"Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. Independence.. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior. pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)
You should consider the latin word "lucifer" for what it is! It means Light Bringer! It translates into latin the name Prabhakara or Dipankara, thus we can conclude that its original meaning quite certainly is something akin buddhism. You have to understand the statements of Blavatsky in this light.

If Satan means Mara then he is the Lord of this planet, this planet as Kamaloka.
Good point about the latin, but such an approach would infer that Mara is the Savior of this world, an inference which would likewise cast Dipankara as being synomous to Mara.... in other words there's a bit of a flaw, especially since most theologians of her time made no separation between the persona of Lucifer and the persona of Satan.

This is from Wiki:

An ancient myth of the fall of angels, associated with the Morning Star, was transferred to Satan, as seen in the Life of Adam and Eve and the Second Book of Enoch, which the Jewish Encyclopedia attributes to the first pre-Christian century: in these Satan-Sataniel (sometimes identified with Samael) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high", Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then, he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss.

Gustave Doré's illustration for Milton's Paradise Lost, Book IV, lines 1013–1015: Satan (alias Lucifer) yielding before GabrielEarly Christian writers continued this identification of "Lucifer" with Satan. Tertullian ("Contra Marcionem," v. 11, 17), Origen (Homilies on Ezekiel 13), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being "cast down from heaven" (Revelation 12:7–10; cf. Luke 10:18).[4]

But today some contemporary exorcists and theologians, such as Father José Antonio Fortea and Father Amorth, asserted that Lucifer and Satan are different beings.


Let's even examine HPB's own words on the matter.... According to Blavatsky's esoteric theology, "Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the 'Holy Ghost' and 'Satan,' at one and the same time".
User avatar
Tree
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:11 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Tree »

I don't know, but her photos look creepy as heck.

Her creepy eyes always freak me out. :rolleye:
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

Pero: This cannot come from someone who has had studied Tibetan Buddhism. Unless that someone is a very poor student.
Once again, Blavatsky never said what she was taught was from gurus of Tibetan Buddhism. Some of the adepts she knew lived much of the time in Tibet, but were unknown to most Tibetans. Those who knew a little about them called them lhapas or godly ones or deva-like men.

My contribution to this thread is not to advocate equality of theosophy with the Dharma. Nor am I advocating Buddhists switch to theosophy. It is just that I came to take refuge with the Triple Jewel based, to a great degree, on Blavatsky's praise of Je Rinpoche and the Mahayana in general. So I am very grateful to her for that. In addition I have studied her life & writings in depth and find many odd notions and misunderstandings of the buddhadharma, but no fraud or malevolence in her at all.

She & Olcott & some other theosophists did something unheard of which drove conventional society nuts. She (and they) took refuge formally in Ceylon under Ven. Sumangala (or Samangala, not sure of spelling). They were probably the first white Buddhists and this infuriated the pious, imperalistic white folk of the planet. For that courageous act alone I revere Upasika Helena Blavatsky.
May all seek, find & follow the Path of Buddhas.
Dharmakara
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Dharmakara »

Will wrote:She & Olcott & some other theosophists did something unheard of which drove conventional society nuts. She (and they) took refuge formally in Ceylon under Ven. Sumangala (or Samangala, not sure of spelling). They were probably the first white Buddhists and this infuriated the pious, imperalistic white folk of the planet. For that courageous act alone I revere Upasika Helena Blavatsky.
Yes, very true... that aspect is quite sad actually, the reaction, especially compared to the open-arm reception that Anagarika Dharmapala received here in the US on his first visit.
Blue Garuda
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Blue Garuda »

HPB was also an inspiration to many, including the scholar W Y Evans-Wentz, whose translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead (however partial) in turn introduced others to TB.

It does us good to realise that Western contact with (Tibetan) Buddhism did not begin with HHDL, and that however shaky, HPB should be given some of the credit for that.
The fact that her contemporary contact with Buddhism also included Ceylon is all the more positive and indicative of a sincere approach.
Left
Dharmakara
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Dharmakara »

Also many are not aware of just how shattered the Buddhist tradition was in Sri Lanka at the time... a country can only take so many colonizations before it looses it's own identity, culture, and hertiage.

Olcott's Buddhist Catechism educated the children there for years and years after his passing. Sadly, even today the country isn't in much better shape, where there's still a concern that the don't have enough properly trained teachers of the Dharma.

With that said, not all was bright and rosy when it came to the publication of the Buddhist Catechism... to get the official seal of approval, Olcott had to remove a refrence to the Temple of the Tooth in regard to the authenticity of it's relic, that it had be replaced after the original was destroyed by the previous colonists... the Danish if I recall correctly.
Last edited by Dharmakara on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pero
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Pero »

Dharmakara wrote:What makes them disturbing is what comes across as the wholesale bastardization (to lower quality or character; debase) every tradition she encountered, for example this one, also from The Secret Doctrine:
Her sayings about Lucifer are nothing new though, that goes back to the Gnostics.
Will wrote: Once again, Blavatsky never said what she was taught was from gurus of Tibetan Buddhism. Some of the adepts she knew lived much of the time in Tibet, but were unknown to most Tibetans. Those who knew a little about them called them lhapas or godly ones or deva-like men.
Well a search on the net says she went to Tibet and trained there for a period of time under her master. She talks about Tibetan Buddhism, though doesn't name it such. The Book Of Dzyan is supposed to be from Tibet too. That would lead one to assume (if one already assumes that she isn't lying about going to Tibet) that she had "trained" in Tibetan Buddhism.
It is just that I came to take refuge with the Triple Jewel based, to a great degree, on Blavatsky's praise of Je Rinpoche and the Mahayana in general. So I am very grateful to her for that.
HPB was also an inspiration to many, including the scholar W Y Evans-Wentz, whose translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead (however partial) in turn introduced others to TB.
...
And as I already said, that's great. :smile:
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Dharmakara
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Dharmakara »

Pero wrote:Well a search on the net says she went to Tibet and trained there for a period of time under her master. She talks about Tibetan Buddhism, though doesn't name it such. The Book Of Dzyan is supposed to be from Tibet too. That would lead one to assume (if one already assumes that she isn't lying about going to Tibet) that she had "trained" in Tibetan Buddhism.
Pero, has there been any critical examination of The Book Of Dzyan when it comes to authenticity? I don't recall if there has been, though another questionable work with silimlar claims comes to mind, Notovitich's saga of St. Issa.
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

Dharmakara wrote:
Pero wrote:Well a search on the net says she went to Tibet and trained there for a period of time under her master. She talks about Tibetan Buddhism, though doesn't name it such. The Book Of Dzyan is supposed to be from Tibet too. That would lead one to assume (if one already assumes that she isn't lying about going to Tibet) that she had "trained" in Tibetan Buddhism.
Pero, has there been any critical examination of The Book Of Dzyan when it comes to authenticity? I don't recall if there has been, though another questionable work with silimlar claims comes to mind, Notovitich's saga of St. Issa.
Not much until recently. David Reigle, a Kalachakra Buddhist and Sanskritist has started this project:

http://theosnet.ning.com/profiles/blogs ... e=activity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
May all seek, find & follow the Path of Buddhas.
Dharmakara
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Dharmakara »

Thanks Will, I'll check it out later today.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Aemilius »

Dharmakara wrote:
Dharmakara wrote:
Aemilius wrote:
"Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. Independence.. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior. pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)
You should consider the latin word "lucifer" for what it is! It means Light Bringer! It translates into latin the name Prabhakara or Dipankara, thus we can conclude that its original meaning quite certainly is something akin buddhism. You have to understand the statements of Blavatsky in this light.

If Satan means Mara then he is the Lord of this planet, this planet as Kamaloka.
Good point about the latin, but such an approach would infer that Mara is the Savior of this world, an inference which would likewise cast Dipankara as being synomous to Mara.... in other words there's a bit of a flaw, especially since most theologians of her time made no separation between the persona of Lucifer and the persona of Satan.
It is a separate line of thought when we conclude that Dipankara means Lucifer, in the meaning of Teacher of Enlightenment. This conclusion fits well with the qualities that Blavatsky gives to Lucifer.


If you stick to the assumption that Satan is Mara, in the sense of being the Lord of Kamaloka, it does not follow from it that he is a Saviour! Or you could also see Mara a Saviour in the sense of saving you back to the realm of sense desires, in the case you were about to escape from it.

I have read what Wikipedia says about Lucifer, but I understand it differently.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Aemilius »

Yeshe wrote:
Aemilius wrote:The article of the title Buddhism In America appeared in New York Sun May 13. 1877, you can read it here http://theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Articles ... merica.htm
Blavatsky was meticulous in her citations and at the end of her books there are long lists of her sources, which are in themselves very interesting.
In this article Blavatsky doesn't quite make the point of saying that name Yashas is the original form of the name Jesus. She has said it somewhere else, nevertheless.
Yashas is one of the Arhats, he is recognised both in the Sravaka vehicle and the Great vehicle. There is a useful source Pen Portraits of Buddha's Eminent Disciples, for information about Arhat Yashas.
I'm not theosophist, but I find Blavatsky's things interesting. There are many terms in her writings that you can know only through Buddhism, it seems clear that no theosophist can understand them, I have often wondered about this?!
I am a member of the TS, and many of those members I know are also Buddhists. I understand that HPB and Col. Olcott took lay precepts and that Olcott spent much of his time in India and Sri Lanka examining source material. To this day, there is a TS HQ at Adyar near Chennai.

There is controversy over whether HPB actually visited Tibet but she certainly writes as if she had personal contact with Tibetan teachers and used a number of terms which one was then unlikely to trip over in the USA:
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts ... chings.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To Yeshe
What do you think of this quote from Blavatsky http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-02.htm ?
In it Blavatsky mentions various yogachara terms like parinishpanna, parikalpita, alaya etc..., and tibetan name Dangma (?) Could it be that Dangma means Dagmema, ie Nairatmaya, the consort of Hevajra?

Although "Dangma" is explained in the link you have given as "purified soul", I still think it really is Dagmema, ie Selflessness.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Aemilius »

To continue a little about that link of Blavatsky on Buddhism, She has some inaccuracies or mistakes, for example when she mentions KuanYin and Vachichsvara, Vachichsvara quite certainly is Manjushri Lord of Speech, Vagishvara, and not Brahman !
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Blue Garuda
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Blue Garuda »

Aemilius wrote:
Yeshe wrote:
Aemilius wrote:The article of the title Buddhism In America appeared in New York Sun May 13. 1877, you can read it here http://theosophy.org/Blavatsky/Articles ... merica.htm
Blavatsky was meticulous in her citations and at the end of her books there are long lists of her sources, which are in themselves very interesting.
In this article Blavatsky doesn't quite make the point of saying that name Yashas is the original form of the name Jesus. She has said it somewhere else, nevertheless.
Yashas is one of the Arhats, he is recognised both in the Sravaka vehicle and the Great vehicle. There is a useful source Pen Portraits of Buddha's Eminent Disciples, for information about Arhat Yashas.
I'm not theosophist, but I find Blavatsky's things interesting. There are many terms in her writings that you can know only through Buddhism, it seems clear that no theosophist can understand them, I have often wondered about this?!
I am a member of the TS, and many of those members I know are also Buddhists. I understand that HPB and Col. Olcott took lay precepts and that Olcott spent much of his time in India and Sri Lanka examining source material. To this day, there is a TS HQ at Adyar near Chennai.

There is controversy over whether HPB actually visited Tibet but she certainly writes as if she had personal contact with Tibetan teachers and used a number of terms which one was then unlikely to trip over in the USA:
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts ... chings.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To Yeshe
What do you think of this quote from Blavatsky http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-1-02.htm ?
In it Blavatsky mentions various yogachara terms like parinishpanna, parikalpita, alaya etc..., and tibetan name Dangma (?) Could it be that Dangma means Dagmema, ie Nairatmaya, the consort of Hevajra?

Although "Dangma" is explained in the link you have given as "purified soul", I still think it really is Dagmema, ie Selflessness.

I'm not very familiar with the Hevajra Dagmema tantras but it would seem most likely.
HPB was quite a linguist but Tibetan must have posed quite a challenge, especially trying to convey a pronunciation in writing which she may have heard in one of many dialects.
Left
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by Aemilius »

Chandrakirti says in his Entrance to the Middle Way, when explaining the 20 Emptinesses, that "Uncomposite phenomena are empty of themselves". Several others among the 20 emptinesses have the meaning that enlightenment is empty of enlightenment.
(source is Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso's teaching on the text of Chandrakirti)
I understand this so that Lucifer, or Prabhakara etc, was an enlightened teacher, well known in Europe, and thus the Theist tradition had to explain his influence and his existence somehow.
Because enlightenment is empty this is possible, it is possible to put a benevolent teacher of Dharma into a bad light with the help of massive propaganda.
Wikipedia says that Lucifer is not mentioned in a very famous theist text known by the name "Bible". Nevertheless he must have been quite important and well known to merit such a wide fame and reputation.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: D. Lopez on Blavatsky

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

Donald Lopez, no fan of Blavatsky, has finally seen her heroic heart.

From a blog http://www.thereisnogap.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Karl Pohrt: From our vantage point, it is easy to dismiss Evans-Wentz, who was born in Trenton, New Jersey and never learned the Tibetan language, or Lama Govinda, who was born Ernst Hoffman in Germany, or Madame Blavatsky, a Russian medium who started the Theosophical Society as—at best—romantic amateurs who misrepresented and twisted Hinduism and Buddhism to fit their own agendas. But is this too harsh a judgment? Maybe the window through which we observe others is always cloudy. Evans-Wentz, Govinda, and Blavatsky were also early western pioneers in the encounter with Asian religious traditions.

Donald Lopez: I agree entirely. I’ve often tried to talk about the importance, especially, of Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. In the late 1800s India and Asia were being overrun by Christian missionaries who were telling the Buddhists that their religion was idolatry and superstition. Madame Blavatsky, a Russian medium, and her friend Colonel Olcott, an American Civil War veteran, sailed to Sri Lanka to defend the Buddhists against the British and they went to India to defend the Hindus against the British. There’s something quite heroic about them. They believed that there is a single mystical tradition from which all religions spring, an idea that continues to this day. And so the fact that they were trying to see Hinduism and Buddhism through that lens is not surprising in the least.
May all seek, find & follow the Path of Buddhas.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America

Post by DGA »

Much of the whole category of "alternative spirituality" emerged into mass culture in Theosophy's wake. A number of particular projects and movements developed directly from it. One interesting one (interesting to me as a historian anyway) is the Roerich movement: the peace pact, Agni Yoga, and all of it. Here's one artifact I found remarkable:

http://agniyoga.org/ay_community.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that the question of whether Blavatsky was right or wrong is kind of beside the point. The better question has to do with what her particular impact was, how significant it was (in terms of reception, in terms of imitators and hangers-on, &c), what discourses she produced, what institutions (and what kind of institutions) came of her work. She's a historically-significant figure; the open question is how significant, and in what ways.
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung

Post by kalden yungdrung »

asunthatneversets wrote:Evans-Wentz played a pioneer role in the study of the literature of the Nyingmapa and Kagyudpa schools and produced a series of early texts(1919, 1935)

How much do you think these early mistranslations actually had/still have an effect?

Tashi delek,

If we do compare Evans Wenz with Madame Blavatsky, who was wellknown to Dalai Lama 13, then are the translated works of E.W. one of the "best" translations in those days. So she formed also the base to corrupt the Dharma for her own egocentric performances. I am also convinced that she formed the base for the New Agies, who do combine or mix up all kind of different religions / philosophies etc. because M.B. felt herself the source of Buddhism / Hindhuism etc.
That was in those days possible because nearly nobody did visit Tibet.

When i started studying Buddhism in 1978, there were only a few books available and one of the first books i did read was the Tibetan Book of the Death with a foreword done by C.G Jung. Ok nowdays we know better translations etc. but for those days it was a special book any way.

Well within a little time there arose a huge amount of translations regarding Tibetan and Theravada Budhism.

The main problem is still, that some publishers take translators who are not wellknown with Tibetan and general Buddhism and they make wrong translations.
For instance especial in Dzogchen do there exist translations who are even wrongly understood by some Dzogchenpas and so misunderstood by some students.

So there still do exist misunderstandings due to wrong translations.......... :o

But maybe the saying in the land of the blind is one eye (of Wisdom) the king. Sorry i do not know the right English saying but you know what is meant.


Mutsog Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

kalden y: If we do compare Evans Wentz with Madame Blavatsky, who was well known to Dalai Lama 13, then are the translated works of E.W. one of the "best" translations in those days. So she formed also the base to corrupt the Dharma for her own egocentric performances.
What is your source for Blavatsky being "well known" to DL 13?

Also, what leads you to think Blavatsky corrupted the Dharma "for her own egocentric performances."
May all seek, find & follow the Path of Buddhas.
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung

Post by kalden yungdrung »

Will wrote:
kalden y: If we do compare Evans Wentz with Madame Blavatsky, who was well known to Dalai Lama 13, then are the translated works of E.W. one of the "best" translations in those days. So she formed also the base to corrupt the Dharma for her own egocentric performances.
What is your source for Blavatsky being "well known" to DL 13?

Also, what leads you to think Blavatsky corrupted the Dharma "for her own egocentric performances."

Tashi delek,

Did read it some time ago, but cannot remember exactly where, but she was the first western woman who did visit the Dalai Lama 13. The Lounge in London did made a report of that event.

Madame Blavatsky did proclaim that it was she who would be the source for Buddhism and Hindhuism and she made her own story about all.
It is written in one of her books i guess Isis unveiled or the Secret Teachings.
That was logicly only possible, because around 1900, nobody was well informed about Tibet.

She made her Stanzas of the White Brotherhood which were in fact the teachings of Gampopa. She did not wrote that it did belong to Kagyu....

To get an impression you can read the Secret Teachings.....

So the translations are very poor and set in a combination / relation with other religions.
Besides that she is teaching theosophy and she combines Brahmanical and the Egyptian esotericism.

So she is not a Buddhist, Hindhu etc. she is all in one.....

Mutsog Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”