Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00428)

Dear Alan,

To study the SD in a group with the origial SD and other versions of it,
students can begin to realise they are studying different works.  The
alterations made to the dead-letter of the altered versions can help to
illumine the real, but this is no good reason for them.
There are so many alterations, where to begin?

Using the original & 3rd editions:

On the *first* page (p. 1 1st ed., p. 31 3rd ed.) of the Proem: "On the
first page is an immaculate white disk . . . "
As stated in an earlier mail, disk (with a k) *becomes* disc (with a c) by
the 4th page of the orig. ed., followed by the actual illustrations of the
symbols in a 3,4,5 pattern.  Its Cosmic organization.  On page 1 disk is
referring to Kosmos (NOUMENON) rather than Cosmos.  In the 3rd ed. disk
remains as disk (not becoming disc on 4th page).  On the 3rd page of the
Proem the diferrence between Kosmos and Cosmos are explained.  In the 3rd
edition the cosmic organization (page 34) becomes somewhat changed.

Those pointers of disk to disc are given in the orig ed. and removed in the
3rd.
Mead was only a scholar and it is understandable that he would say you spell
disk d i s k and that is an end to it. That Western mind approach that wants
all the spellings in a work to conform.
HPB was an occultist, which is so utterly different that we can barely begin
to understand what that means.
That we get involved in good and bad English is a proof of that. English was
the tool she used to produce such a fine carving (like trying to produce a
fine carving with a blunt axe). Getting involved in good and bad English
comes over as being irrelavant, and it is far far easier than going to the
meaning behind.

In the first fundamental proposition (p.14 orig ed.): "Mandukya" becomes
"the *Mandukya*" with accents in the 3rd ed.  Why?  Why make that alteration?

There are thousands and thousands of these alterations and to highlight them
all seems unnecessary.  We are all able to compare the 2 editions.  The
conclusions we draw will be different.
Best wishes
Tony

>>And when changes are made without telling the reader,
>>how is the reader to know whether the changes are
>>actually justified or not?
>
>There, as they say, is the rub!  However, Mead (and Besant) *did* tell
>the reader that they has made changes, and why. Furthermore, the
>original edition was readily available at the time for students to make
>their comparisons, and thanks to dedicated theosophists, still is.  As I
>wrote to Dallas, maybe the differences could be highlighted, compared,
>and discussed?