Theos-Talk Archives (September 2000 Message tt00003)

SUBJECT:  David Reigle's Reply to Frank Reitemeyer's
commmunication on the new German SD study edition ,
etc.

[I forward the following from David Reigle.  Daniel
Caldwell.]
-----------------

Although I do not have e-mail, Daniel Caldwell passed
on to me Frank Reitemeyer's communication, or rather
critique of myself, and more importantly, of the new
German Secret Doctrine study edition. Frank closes
with the P.S.: "If David reads this I would like to
get a comment from him, whether public or private."
Since Frank's communication was posted publicly, my
reply will also be public.

First of all, what are you doing, Frank? Must
Theosophy go down in history as the movement that
espoused brotherhood, but whose own proponents could
not refrain from the habit of verbally attacking each
other? A technique that has been used successfully in
other fields is known as constructive criticism. If
you disagree with someone, you state the point of
disagreement, and give your reasons. You stay on the
issue, and avoid attacking personalities. That person
replies, also staying on the issue. In this way, some
increased understanding and benefit is possible. When
you attack personalities, only ill-will is generated,
and no answers. Frank, when you first became known to
American Theosophical workers, you were well-regarded
as a serious student and a dedicated worker. Now you
are losing your credibility when you make such
statements as: "To make it short, this faked SD by
Reigle and Troemel raised the biggest crisis in the
German Section since the Steiner affair of 1912/13."

Let us look at the issues. The German language study
edition of The Secret Doctrine was prepared by Hank
Troemel. Over the past few years, when Hank was
translating the Stanzas and their commentaries, he and
I had frequent discussions for the purpose of
correctly ascertaining what HPB meant by many of the
terms and some of the phrasing used by her. From this
I can say with certainty that the SD edition prepared
by Hank is not "a conscious falsification of all major
doctrines" as alleged by Frank. Rather, it is just the
opposite. It is a conscious and careful attempt to
render as accurately as possible the doctrines of the
SD into German. Contrary to what Frank would have us
believe, the accuracy of Hank's new translation has
been noticed and praised by virtually all other
reviewers except Frank. This is the most important
issue, and I trust that most readers will easily see
through Frank's extreme claims.

Another issue is Frank's criticism of some of my own
writings, such as where I say that Tsong-kha-pa
apparently refutes the first fundamental proposition
of The Secret Doctrine. To this Frank says: "David is
surely wrong. For me there is no difference between
Tsongkhapa and SD." Although many Theosophists are not
in the habit of reading writings other than their own,
it is helpful when discussing Tsong-kha-pa to have
first read at least some of his writings. A number of
these are now available in translation. The topic in
question is treated by Tsong-kha-pa directly in two
recent books:

Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism: Dynamic
Responses to Dzong-ka-ba's The Essence of Eloquence,
by Jeffrey Hopkins, University of California Press,
1999;

The Nature of Things: Emptiness and Essence in the
Geluk World, by William Magee, Snow Lion Publications,
1999.

In these books Tsong-kha-pa clearly and pointedly
refutes any absolute essence or principle. One cannot
say that these are merely exoteric interpretations and
not his true teaching, since all Gelugpas from the
Dalai Lama down accept that this is the true teaching
of Tsong-kha-pa, received in an unbroken lineage of
transmission directly from Tsong-kha-pa. We must deal
with Tsong-kha-pa's teachings as we find them in the
Gelugpa tradition, despite whatever HPB may say about
him.

The main premise on which Frank's statements seem to
be based is that whatever H. P. Blavatsky said must
necessarily be true and correct. Accepting this
premise, her following statements must also be true:

"I have never boasted of any knowledge of Sanskrit, .
. . I never claimed infallibility . . ." (BCW
7.347-348)

"Not that any claim to infallibility, or to perfect
correctness in every detail of all that which is
herein said, was ever put forward." (SD 1.272)

"Having never claimed personal infallibility, that
which is given on her own authority may leave much to
be desired, in the very abstruse cases where too deep
metaphysic is involved." (SD 2.22 fn.)

"And here, we must be allowed a last remark. No true
theosophist, from the most ignorant up to the most
learned, ought to claim infallibility for anything he
may say or write upon occult matters. The chief point
is to admit that, in many a way, in the classification
of either cosmic or human principles, in addition to
mistakes in the order of evolution, and especially on
metaphysical questions, those of us who pretend to
teach others more ignorant than ourselves are all
liable to err. Thus mistakes have been made in "Isis
Unveiled," in "Esoteric Buddhism," in "Man," in
"Magic: White and Black," etc. etc.; and more than one
mistake is likely to be found in the present work.
This cannot be helped. For a large or even a small
work on such abstruse subjects to be entirely exempt
from error and blunder, it would have to be written
from its first to its last page by a great adept, if
not by an Avatar." (SD 2.640)

Now that we are agreed on this, it will perhaps not
seem quite so heretical of me to point out apparent
problems in the SD and attempt to address them. You
may note that I spent considerable effort to trace a
doctrine in Tibetan Buddhism which is in fact
compatible with the first fundamental proposition of
the SD, that of Dolpopa and the Jonangpas. This
doctrine is what Tsong-kha-pa most pointedly refutes.

Lastly, Frank informs us that David Reigle (myself)
"sees himself as a messenger of the Masters, claiming
the same knowledge (or higher?) than HPB." I have
always found it strange that I am the last to be
informed of these things! But seriously, all who are
acquainted with me know that I have never made or
implied any such claim. Has it not struck you as
incongruous that a messenger of the Masters would
spend his adult life searching for the Book of Dzyan?
But this has its advantages. Not being bound by the
pledges of secrecy required of a chela, when the Book
of Dzyan is discovered, as I fully expect it will be
in my lifetime, I will be quite free to promote it
publicly to the best of my ability.

David Reigle

------------------



=====
Daniel H. Caldwell
DanielhCaldwell@yahoo.com
Blavatsky Archives Online
http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.