Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00267)

In a message dated 1/23/99 1:54:35 AM, Dallas wrote:

<<This information shows me that the philological origin of the word

is not important but that the ideas that it represents are.  It was used by
those who gave Theosophy to us for some distinct reason.>>

Dallas,

It is fine if you don't care about the philological origin of the word.  I'm
not saying we should all become linguists, nor that we should all become
excited about "Eye Doctrine."  But when errors are pointed out to us,
shouldn't we acknowledge them, rather than run and hide?  I will mention a
crucial bit of information you left out of your report to this list regarding
the BLAVATSKY COLLECTED WORKS:

In the index to BCW, both volumes 3 & 4, "Devachan" is identified (correctly)
as of Tibetan origin, spelled "bde-ba-chan."  Curious that you didn't mention
that fact -- did you wish to hide it?

It is also interesting that you don't address the the central point of the
discussion.  This is the circumstance that in the Glossary, the word Devachan
is identified as Sanskrit, and mis-translated as "the dwelling of the gods,"
while it is a FACT that the word is Tibetan and means "possessed of bliss."  I
have submitted the *primary* evidence which you requested, quoting a Tibetan
scripture.

Is it at all significant that the word Devachan has been misidentified and
mistranslated for one century in the GLOSSARY which bears HPB's name?  Is this
something modern-day Theosophists should correct?  I suspect you will say "no"
to both questions, but I am very curious as to WHY.

Rich