Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00240)

Eldon B. Tucker wrote:

> We can't (or perhaps I'd say shouldn't) try to change Blavatsky's
> words. But we can write about Theosophy with our own slants,
> writing in a way that appeals to a particular "market segment" of
> spiritual questers.

	A) Blavatsky's editors had no problem changing her words.

	B) Words change meaning over time; I have heard that John Algeo is at
work at a new Theosophical Glossary.

	C) There are a number of cases where it is clear that Blavatsky and the
Mahatmas were writing based on incorrect information given to them. The
statement about potential energy in the Mahatma Letters (sorry, I forget
which one; look it up in the index) makes it abundantly clear that
potential energy was improperly defined to them, and they are talking
about a different concept entirely. Simlarly, Blavatsky's comments on
hypnotism are clearly based on an improper definition of hypnotism
(especially as evidenced in the Theosophical Glossary).

	Bart Lidofsky