Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00243)

At 06:15 PM 5/18/97 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>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.
>
   I tend to agree with Eldon's view on this.

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

   If Blavatsky's editors were allowed to change her words when she was
alive it is ok because if she thought any change is unacceptable to her she
would have refused to the change. Who else was in a better position to know
what was written than the author.


>	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).
>

    It may be better to leave the texts alone.

	Let the present scholars write books under their own name and get them
published. In today's Internet world, anyone can publish on Internet. All
you do is to type it in a word processor and upload it to some server or
even serialize on theos-l for free and no strings attached.


       .....doss