Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00158)

SUBJECT:  Rich Taylor and Some of His Observations on THE THEOSOPHICAL
GLOSSARY

Daniel wrote:


> <<ALSO CONSULT THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY WHERE HPB WRITES ABOUT "KHADO"
> (P. 177), DAKINI (P. 95), INCUBUS (P. 154).  Please COMPARE HPB's
> definitions of these terms with Nicholas' definition:  "a visualized
> goddess ie an elemental or deva that is sexually arousing".  Are HPB and
> Nicholas writing about the same kind of "entity"?>>

Rich replied:

> I am sorry to say that the Glossary is not to be trusted, as per the study by
> Boris de Zirkoff.  Only the first 32 pages were read and proofed by HPB.
> Daniel's quote is another example of the Glossary's untrustworthiness.

Daniel comments:

Rich, if I were you, I would not be so eager to jump onto the
anti-"Theosophical Glossary" bandwagon.  You refer to the "study by
Boris de Zirkoff" which is a reference to Mr. de Zirkoff's article
titled "Who Played That Trick on H.P.B.?" which was first published in
THEOSOPHIA, Winter 67-68 issue.  Although Mr. de Zirkoff brings up a
number of important observations, unfortunately, IMO, he does not give a
balanced perspective on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY.  In fact, Mr. de
Zirkoff does not answer the question: "Who Played That Trick on
H.P.B.?"  If anyone played the "trick" of adding substantial material to
HPB's orginal TG MSS after her death, it must have been G.R.S. Meade,
who was the editor of HPB's posthumuously published book.  What is
overlooked in Mr. de Zirkoff's article, is that (1) HPB indeed relied on
various published works for "the tabulation of facts" but time and time
again, (2) Madame Blavatsky would then add her occult comments to this
"tabulation".  Or do you choose to believe that Meade also wrote those
"occult comments".  This is not the time or place to go over various
issues raised by Mr. de Zirkoff in his article.  But I must say that his
article is very one sided and hence misleading.  One need only look at
Mr. de Zirkoff's annotated copy of the TG to find certain important
things which, unfortunately, BdZ did not report about in his article.
Time and time again I have found Blavatsky students simply accepting
BdZ's observations without examining them and asking relevant
questions.  Even Jerry Hejka-Ekins adds confusion in his comment about
THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY:

"The portion of manuscript material actually penned by HPB for this
glossary was apparently added to the second edition of THE KEY TO
THEOSOPHY in 1890, during her lifetime."  (p. 196, A STUDY GUIDE TO THE
PERENNIAL WISDOM.)


Rich continued his comments:


> As a contradicting passage, surely approved by HPB, we find at Stanza of Dzyan
> vol. 2, X.41:
>
> "They took wives fair to look at.  Wives from the "mindless," the narrow-
> headed.  They bred monsters, wicked demons, male and female.  Also Khado
> (Dakini) with little minds."
>
> Rich's comment: notice here that Khado are separated off from the wicked
> monsters.  The Khado are without Manas, apparently, but not inherently evil.
> HPB's comment proves this:
>
> on page 271 of vol. 2 of the SD the following:
>
> "But with the Fourth Race we reach the purely human period.  Those who were
> hitherto semi-divine Beings, self-imprisoned in bodies which were human only
> in appearance, became physiologically changed and took unto themselves wives
> who were entirely human and fair to look at, but in whom LOWER, MORE MATERIAL,
> though sidereal, beings had incarnated.  These beings in female form (Lilith
> is the prototype of these in the Jewish tradition) are called in the esoteric
> accounts "Khado" (Dakini, in Sanskrit).  Allegorical legends call the chiefs
> of these Liliths, Sangye Khado (Buddha Dakini, in Sanskrit); all are credited
> with the art of "walking in the air," and the greatest KINDNESS TO MORTALS;
> but NO MIND--only animal instinct."
>
> This again proves my point that contradictions are to be found in Theosophical
> literature which should give us great pause against slavish (mindless)
> devotion: not only aren't these "elementals" evil, per se, but their head is
> called "Buddha Dakini" which could be translated "enlightened female spirit."
> (As such legends are, according to HPB, allegorical, we might assume that
> Buddha Dakini actually refers to Buddhi, the human intuitional and spiritual
> faculty, personified as an outer spiritual being.)


Daniel replies:

I will point out that it is possible that the word "Dakini" and "Khado"
can have different shades of meaning in different contexts.  Regarding
the definitions in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY of these two terms, I will
quote from a few writers:

Lama Govinda in his THE FOUNDATIONS OF TIBETAN MYSTICISM writes about
the words "dakini" and "khadoma":

"In Classical Sanskrit *Dakinis* were mainly conceived as demoniacal
beings hostile to humans and haunting cremation grounds and similar
lonely and uncanny places, where unknown dangers lurked."  (p. 191)

But the Lama says that a "change in the conception of Dakinis" came
about "under the influence of Buddhist Schools of meditation."

"Thus *Dakinis* became the genii of meditation, spiritual helpers, who
inspired the *Sadhaka* (devotee) and roused him from the illusion of
worldly contentment.  They were forces that awakened the dormant
qualities of mind and soul."  (p. 192)

At this point he gives "the Tibetan rendering of the word" as "Khadoma",
and explains:

". . . According to popular conception a *Khadoma* is therefore a
heavenly being of female appearance. . . who partakes of the luminous
nature of space or ether, in which she moves.  She is gifted with higher
knowledge and appears to the earnest seeker, especially to the
practising *Yogi*, in human or divine , demoniacal or fairy-like. . . .
"  (p. 192)  Govinda goes on to give the real meaning of the term "in
the sense of meditation and in the language of *Yoga*."

Again the Tibetologist David Snellgrove describes Dakinis as follows:

"There is frequent reference to them in the tantric texts, where they
appear as the partners of the yogins. . . . Their presence was essential
to the performance of the psycho-sexual rites and their activities
generally are so gruesome and obscene as to earn them quite properly the
name of witch.  They enter Tibetan mythology in a rather more gentle
aspect, and ceasing altogether to be beings of flesh and blood, they
become the bestowers of mystic doctrines and bringers of divine
offerings.  They become the individual symbols of divine wisdom with
which the meditator must mystically unite . . . ."  (BUDDHIST HIMALAYA,
p. 175)

One more quote from Mircea Eliade's YOGA:  IMMORTALITY AND FREEDOM.
Read pp. 343-344, where Eliade writes about "certain fairies" and
mentions them as "nymphs and sorcerresses" who serve the Goddess Durga.
These "Yoginis, Dakinis, and Lamas are kindly and at the same time
terrible. . . .The Dakinis are red-skinned and exude the fragrance of
lotus; they have gentle faces, red eyes and nails, and they like to
decorate their dwellings with pictures of lotus blossoms. . . .Fairies,
she-devils, sorcerresses---all these companions . . . of Durga represent
minor deities of both vegetation and destiny (they bring wealth or
death), at the same time incarnating the forces of shamanic magic or
Yoga. . .. Tibetan paintings show the Dakinis under their terrible
aspect. . . Whatever be the origin of these terrible demi-goddesses,
they were soon incorporated into tantrism; we find them, for example,
represented in the *cakras*, together with other divinities. . . ."

Rich, as a Theosophical and Blavatsky student, I suggest that you read
various articles and comments that HPB makes throughout her writings on
elementals and ask yourself what is the occult reality of these
creatures described by Govinda, Snellgrove and Eliade.

Also reread in THE MAHATMA LETTERS (Chrono ed). what KH says about
"every thought of man upon being evolved passes into the inner world. .
. . .Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active beneficent power;
an evil one as a maleficent demon. . . .) p. 472. I quote only part of
it.

Also Master M's comments as reported in a letter of HPB's (ML, pp.
95-96) concerning the "unprogressed Planetaries" and "Ma-Mo" Chohans.
This term "Ma-mo" is a Tibetan word which referes to "a class of
demons".
Stephen Beyer in THE CULT OF TARA:  MAGIC AND RITUAL IN TIBET, p. 294
writes about "eight classes of gods and demons" and lists as number 8
"the class of *mamo* who are bringers of disease."

Also consult the term "elemental" in the CUMULATIVE INDEX (Volume 15) of
HPB's COLLECTED WRITINGS and see how HPB repeatedly describes
elementals.

Then compare the above with HPB's definitions I mentioned in her
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY.  These TG definitions appear to be accurate and
correct in light of the above.  It is true these definitions must be
viewed in a broader context and with the understanding that these
"beings" can have a positive as well as a negative aspect to their
nature.


In reference to your quote from page 271 of vol. 2 of the SD, please
notice that HPB associates these entities with the "Lilith" myth.  THE
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF WORLD RELIGIONS defines "Lilith" as "a female demon
in Jewish mythology."

And THE FUNK AND WAGNALLS STANDARD DICTIONARY OF FOLKLORE, MYTHOLOGY AND
LEGEND partially defines this term as ". . . the queen of the demons and
sometimes wife of the Devil. . . .Lilith a night demon, a succubus who
slept with sleeping men and whose offspring from these unions were the
demons."  See HPB's definitions of "incubus" and "succubus" in THE
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY.

And when HPB writes:

"Allegorical legends call the chiefs of these Liliths, Sangye Khado
(Buddha Dakini, in Sanskrit); all are credited with the art of 'walking
in the air,' and the greatest KINDNESS TO MORTALS; but NO MIND--only
animal instinct."

I find that she is apparently deriving this legend from Emil
Schlagintweit's BUDDHISM IN TIBET (published 1863), bottom of p. 248.

I quote but one sentence from Schlagintweit's text:

"The Dakinis are female spirits countless in number who evince the
greatest kindness towards men."

The terms "Khado" and "Sangye" are also used by Schlagintweit in his
description of the dakinis.

I hope some of the above will throw a little light on this subject.