Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00195)

Dec 16th 1998

Dear Rich:

Some notes are inserted in your reply/comments below

Dal

> From: "Richard Taylor" <richtay@aol.com>
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 15, 1998 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Theosophical Glossary by H.P. Blavatsky

I want to make it clear that I do not wish to criticize HPB or
her
Theosophical work in any way.  She is obviously far more learned,
in the
strict sense, as well as more traveled and more spiritually
developed than ANY
of us on this list.  I take that as self-evident.

Dallas has spent a lifetime satisfying himself that Theosophy as
presented is
completely coherent and far above modern scholarship, which may
in fact be
true.  However, in my scant 12 years in the movement, I have
found a number of
contradictions and puzzles which give me pasue, and help me take
HPB seriously
that "There is no Religion Higher than Truth" and that even HPB
should be
investigated and, if necessary, supplemented.

DALLAS	HPB has herself invited this.  No one, she says ought to
take her as an "authority" and each ought to study on their own
and make up their own minds.


Again, I have no wish to proclaim that the Glossary is utterly
useless as a
research tool or as an aid to understanding HPB and Theosophy.
What I wrote
is that it is untrustworthy, and I stand by that.  Numerous
entries are
troublesome and need to be checked.  Unfortunately, as stated,
none of us have
the education and development of HPB.  So we each have our little
fields of
expertise, and we investigate.  Here are the few investigations I
have time to
share today, a few Glossary entries which have minor typos to
serious errors
of fact.


Codex Nazareus: Epiphanius wrote in the 4th century, not the
14th.

DALLAS:	EPIHANIUS did write in the 4th Cent AD  -- this entry not
proof-read by HPB.


Dakini: in the Glossary they are wholly evil elementals, in the
SD. vol. 2,
dangerous but useful spiritual consorts; their leader is called
Sangye Khado,
"Enlightened Spirit."

DALLAS:  2 references to DAKINI in SD II  271, 285  -- all I can
find.  No change in the definition given in the GLOSSARY was
found  -- can you give me the reference ?


Dugpas: According to my knowledge (and I'm checking with my prof)
the word
does not mean anything close to "red hat."  Rather, one of its
various
homonyms (and it's tough to know which one because HPB spells
things
phonetically and not "correctly" with silent letters) it means
evil,
poisonous.  I have previously posted my feelings on this topic,
but the hard
and fast distinction which may in the 15th century have applied
to Yellow and
Red Hats is not only misleading but pernicious, condemning as it
does most
Tibetans to the Evil School.  But then HPB contradicts herself,
and states
that most Dugpas live in Bhutan, unaware of pure Northern
Buddhism.  So does
Dugpa mean "Red Hat" for HPB (in which case Tibet is full of
them) or "Bonpo,"
a practitioner of native Tibetan religion -- most of whom
currently live in
Bhutan.  I think it's the latter, and we should all stop
castigating the poor
Lamas who belong to schools predating the Gelugpa (Dalai Lama)
sect.  But in
any case, the translation "Red Hat" is, I feel certain,
completely wrong.
I'll update you with my (practising Buddhist) professor's
knowledge.


DALLAS:	I am of the opinion that HPB was trying to draw our
attention to the nature of their teachings and not to their robes
only.  What they teach and mean gives them their status in either
the right-hand or the left-hand schools.

DUGPAS  GLOS. P. 105-6  [  see also PATH Vol. I p. 382  HPB Art
Vol. I, p. 227
HPB III 357-9  361-3  SD I 156 159 586  ML 294 297 298  HPB
LETTERS to APS p. 241
Voice 56 59 ]


Fakir: Instructive because HPB here says distinctly that in Isis
(and
presumably, many early works) a misleading ("loose") terminology
was used.

DALLAS:	GLOSSARY p. 118	noted.

Tantra: In the Glossary, wholly erroneous, even the literal
definition.
Tantra is literally "a loom; warp (as opposed to woof); the
essential or main
point."  Many tantras do focus on female visualizations, but many
do not.   At
least the following entry on "Tantrika" distinguishes white and
black magic!

DALLAS:  Glos. P. 319 - only a brief description

2 Schools the Dakshinacaharis and Vamacharis or right and
left-handed schools/paths
References in THEOSOPHIST ALREADY FORWARDED TO YOU.


More late when finals are over.

Rich


Dallas:  Still far too little to make a sweeping statement
concerning the Glossary and its usefulness.

Best wishes,

Dal.