Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00213)

SUBJECT:  Who actually wrote the "errors" in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY?

In the last week on Theos-Talk, we have had the following two "negative"
opinions about HPB's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY:

STATEMENT 1:  "The Glossary is indeed full of errors. . . . Had I the
time I would find dozens of entries I think are suspicious and
contradict earlier writings of HPB, especially the SD. . . . Mead wrote
a great deal of it, and it waited for HPB's approval. After she died,
the MSS. were simply published without HPB's thoroughgoing edit.  Much
of what's in there is from HPB, and I feel certain much is not."

STATEMENT 2:  "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
inconsistent and garbled version."

[Compare these statements with what Boris de Zirkoff wrote in his
article on the TG.]

It would appear that the above two statements are based on the reasoning
that since there are alleged "errors" and "contradictions" in the
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, therefore, H.P. Blavatsky did NOT write those
portions of the text.  Instead, it is hypothesized that, G.R.S. Mead or
other unnamed "less informed theosophists" wrote the portions containing
the errors and inconsistencies.  It is alleged that these "additions" to
HPB's genuine manuscript were written sometime after May 8, 1891 but
prior to the publication of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY in early 1892.
The added material was incorporated into HPB's text and palmed off as
genuine Blavatsky writing.

Is this the gist of the reasoning in the above two statements?  If not,
what is it?

These two opinions appear similar to the ones previously made by Boris
de Zirkoff and Jerry Hejka-Edkins.

First of all, these are SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS against Mr. Mead and other
personal students of HPB.

Let us take the above reasoning and see if it holds up in light of the
following evidence:

For example, Boris de Zirkoff writes that "the definitions of the Days
and Nights of Brahma are entirely wrong [in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY]."

Are we to conclude therefore that HPB could not have written those
definitions?  Is that what Mr. de Zirkoff is asking us to do?  I assume
this is his line of thinking.

But these SAME definitions appear in the 60-page glossary appended to
the second edition of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY.  This second edition of the
KEY was published in late 1890 while HPB was still alive.  And in the
Preface to this second edition, HPB writes:

"I have added a copious 'Glossary' of all the technical terms. . . .[to
this second edition]."

2 + 2 =  ???

Or take the original edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE.  H.P.B. writes
in a note to the main text:

"Eternity with the Orientals has quite another signification than it has
with us.  It stands generally for the 100 years or 'age' of Brahma, the
duration of a Kalpa or a period of 4,320,000,000 years."  pp. 74-75.

Yet Dr. Jean-Louis Siemons considers the time-period given as "a
palpable error."  And in the Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF
THE SILENCE, the error has also been "corrected."

Would Boris or Rich or Leon maintain that these "errors" in texts
published during HPB's lifetime were ALSO made by G.R.S. Mead or other
unnamed "less informed theosophists."?

Does anyone see my point?

Another example:

Rich writes---

"Here are the few investigations I have time to share today, a few
Glossary entries which have minor typos to serious errors
of fact. . . "

He then cites several including the following example:

"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."

It is unclear to me whether Rich believes HPB was in "error" when
writing about "dugpas" OR whether the "error" should be blamed on poor
Mr. Mead!!!  Which is it, Rich?

But if Rich or Leon or Boris is insisting  that this is another "error"
indicating that HPB did NOT write it, then please turn to THE VOICE OF
THE SILENCE, p. 90 and read HPB's note on the Dugpas:

"The *Bhons* or *Dugpas*, the sect of the 'Red Caps,' are regarded as
the most versed in sorcery. They inhabit Western and little Tibet and
Bhutan. They are all Tantrikas. . . ."  [Compare this to what KH writes
about "Tantrikas".]

Is there an "error" here in the VOICE note?  Is Rich or Leon ready to
attribute this statement in the VOICE  to the pen of Mead or "other much
less informed theosophists"?

Also consult published articles in which HPB writes about the Dugpas.
Are there "errors" about the dugpas in these writings of HPB (published
during her lifetime)?   Example:  HPB writes:  "In Sikkim and Tibet they
are called Dugpas (red-caps). . . ."  COLLECTED WRITINGS, VI,  p. 198.
Also reprinted in Theosophy Company's 3 volume edition of HPB's
THEOSOPHICAL ARTICLES (article on "Elementals.")

Should I go on with other examples?  Does anyone see my basic point?

(More on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY in future emails.)