Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00203)

In a message dated 12/16/98 1:01:33 AM, Rich wrote:

>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.

You are right that the Glossary supposedly written by HPB is untrusworthy.
(Check the corroborative note appended to the Theosophical Glossary included
in the compendium of Glossaries posted on the
<A HREF="http://www.blavatsky.net/";>http://www.blavatsky.net/</A> site.

The fact is that HPB died before she had finished one third of the TG.  The
unedited manuscript was picked up by other much less informed theosophists who
added to it and produced the present insconsistent and garbled version.
Therefore, there's not much point in doing anything more than correcting the
errors when valid references are found, and compiling our own addendums.

In any event, researchers can refer to the many other glossaries that are
published in the Blavatsky net compendium plus the many Buddhist dictionaries,
with additional reference to any other definitions they may find in other
works by HPB plus other knowledgeable experts==and judge accordingly.

LHM