Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00265)

In a message dated 12/26/98 11:20:09 PM, Daniel wrote:

<<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?>>

Daniel, I see your basic point, I think.  You are saying that if these are
real errors, it is impossible to say that HPB did not write most of them.  And
I quite agree.

I am not sure, however, that they are errors.  If we agree that "Red Hat" and
"Dugpa" applies to the Bonpas in Western Tibet and Bhutan, then I think HPB is
right: they are practicing magic concerned with personal development using
largely elemental forces.  I share HPB's view is *THIS* kind of tantrika
practice.  What I object to is painting all Tibetan Buddhists besides Gelugpas
with the same brush, making them all out to be evil sorcerors and such,
especially when it is REAL "Red Hat" teachings (Dzogchen, among others) that
apply most directly to Theosophical teachings.

Yes, I agree that HPB may have (herself, directly) written errors about the
cycles of the Days of Brahma, and she may herself have written the several
Glossary entries I have pointed to which have wrong dates, etc.  But I am also
quite certain that many errors appeared in HPB's work due to her friends and
editors, all much less learned than she.  HPB is certainly capable of errors,
but I feel certain many errors in the S.D. are due to Olcott and others, and
errors in the Glossary due to Mead.

I can't prove that, Daniel, nor do I care to.  I don't REALLY care where the
errors come from, and if your point is that at least some of them are
certainly written by HPB, then I agree.  HPB could and did make mistakes, both
in writing and in speaking.  We have several eye-witness accounts that in
making a mistake in public, she would slap herself upside the head and say
"How silly I am" or something to that effect.

I want to hasten to add, however, that many of what look like errors to us are
perhaps blinds, or as Reed Carson says, esoteric references that we don't have
the means to assess, or simply typographical errors or other banal confusions.
Sorting these all out is extremely tricky, time-consuming business, with no
guarantee of success.  I for one am not interested in such a project.  But I
do indeed *SUSPECT* Mead of assisting in the Glossary, writing preliminary
material, or failing to edit well HPB's material.  I am quite interested in
proofs to the contrary -- that HPB herself wrote every iota of text, and
oversaw it's final publication.  I think that is quite wrong.

Rich