Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00263)

SUBJECT:  Rich on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY

Rich, BELOW  you deal with the "Reds Hats" as "Bonpos" and quote from THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, etc.

But before I comment on your latest material, I'm wondering what your thoughts are
on my previous post titled:  "Who actually wrote the 'errors' in THE THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY?" and with a Date of Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:53:21.

This post of mine was in response to the contention that GRS Mead had written
material for the TG and mistakes found therein could be attributed to him.  If you
consult that post, I gave two examples to illustrate my point.  I REPEAT this post
of mine BELOW at the very tail end of this email.  Comments please.

Daniel

Richtay@aol.com wrote:


>
> As further proof of my identification of Red Hats with Bonpos, I quote from
> the Glossary, which in this case is right on target:
>
> p. 321., "TASSISSUDUN: (Tibetan): Literally, "the holy city of the doctrine";
> inhabited, nevertheless, by more Dugpas than Saints.  It is the residential
> capital in BHUTAN [Nota Bene] of the ecclesiastical Head of the Bhons-- the
> Dharma Raja.  The latter, though professedly a Northern Buddhist, is simply a
> worshipper of the old demon-gods of the aborigines [of Tibet], the nature-
> sprites or elementals, worshipped in the land before the introduction of
> Buddhism.  All strangers are [were] prevented from penetrating into Eastern or
> Great Tibet, and the few scholars who venture on their travels into those
> forbidden regions, are permitted to penetrate no further than the border lands
> of the land of Bod [Tibet].  They journey about Bhutan, Sikkhim, and elsewhere
> on the frontiers of the country, but can learn or know nothing of true Tibet;
> hence, nothing of the true Northern Buddhism or Lamaism of Tsong-Kha-Pa.  And
> yet, while describing no more than the rites and beliefs of the Bhons [Bonpos]
> and the travelling shamans, they assure the world they are giving it the pure
> Northern Buddhism, and comment on its great fall from its pristine purity
> [compared to the Southern schools, or Theravada Buddhism]."
>
> This states pretty clearly that the Dugpas are the Bonpos in Bhutan and
> Sikkhim.  Next I will look for a quote that identifies the Dugpas with the Red
> Hat sect in Tibet, and it will be a virtual syllogism.  Bonpos = Dugpas = Red
> Hats.  (Then we can leave the poor Nyingmas and other Tibetan Buddhists alone
> and quit calling them evil sorcerors on Theosophical authority.)
>
> *********************************
>
> More on the reliability of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY
>
> Nearly every page has problems, it seems.  Having read the above article on
> Tassissudun, I glanced at the article TATHAGATA, "One who is like the coming."
> There is absolutely no linguistic basis for this translation.  There are lists
> in Buddhist works giving up to eight translations for the term Tathagata --
> none like the above.  HPB may want to give her own spin to this extremely
> well-established term in Buddhism, but she doesn't even give out the popular
> definition, so the reader thinks that "One who is like the coming" is the
> actual meaning among Buddhists.  Rather, TATHAGATA is universally accepted by
> Buddhists as meaning either "The Thus-Gone One" (one who has gone to Thusness,
> Nirvana) or else "The Thus-Come One" (one who has come from Thusness, or
> Nirvana.)  Tathagata means "that, thus, such" and gata, from the Sanskrit root
> GAM, to go, means either "come" or "gone."  TATHAGATA refers to *all* perfect
> Buddhas, and not, as the Glossary states, merely to Lord Gautama Buddha.
> Amitabha, Dipankara, Akshobhya, and many other Buddhas are also referred to as
> TATHAGATA.
>
> Only a page later, we find TCHAITYA, spelled in Russian style.  The term is
> CHAITYA and refers not to "a locality made sacred through some event in the
> life of the Buddha" (there are only four major pilgrimage sites for Buddhists)
> but simply to a stupa, a domed-base, pointy-top burial mound, with many
> symbolic features and usually Mahayana Buddhist scriptures buried inside.
> King Ashoka is said to have built 84,000 of them, although this is surely
> greatly exaggerated.  The word Chaitya proceeds from the Sanskrit "Citta"
> (mind, consciousness) and so Chaitya means "remembrance" (of the Buddha), a
> sculpture built to remind passersby that the Buddha lived, and the nature of
> his teachings.
>
> Next, there is THSANG THISRONG TSAN. (Actually spelled in Tibetan "Khri srong
> lde brstan," but HPB apparently chose phonetic spelling above accuracy, which
> is understandable.)  She gives the dates for this king's rule of Tibet as
> 728-787, when modern scholarship has pretty well established his reign as
> 756-797.  It is this king who first truly established Buddhism in Tibet and
> built the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet, called bSamyas (phonetically,
> "Samye")
>
> The Glossary's scholarship is pretty darn good, especiallu for last century.
> I don't mean to trash the whole volume.  I am merely trying to prove that it
> is not entirely accurate, and not to be trusted independently of other
> reference sources (including those OUTSIDE the Theosophical "Canon.")
>
> Rich

MY PREVIOUS POST ON THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY


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

> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:53:21 -0700
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>


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.)