Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00430)

May 24th

Re.:  S D  original of 1888 and "3rd and Revised," of 1893.

Dear Alpha:

What a job you propose -- No we all know that the 1893 edition
had vast changes.  But why waste time over them ?  Better to
stick with what HPB herself passed and allowed to be printed.
More surety.

That is why the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS  in 192, printed the
S D from photographic plates made from the original edition.

By that time the original SD (1888) was only in libraries and
virtually unavailable.

The keeping in print of the original version of Theosophy is one
of the missions of the ULT.  The second is keeping an open forum
where anyone can participate in their study.

Regards,        Dallas

> Date: Sunday, May 24, 1998 5:05 AM
> From: "Alpha (Tony)" <alpha@dircon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Re: SD 3rd Edition

>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?