Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00432)

Dear Tony,

Thank you for the following.  I have begun downloading the 1888
edition from the Pasadena Library site so that I can make the necessary
comparisons.

Alan

alpha@dircon.co.uk writes
>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
>
-------------------
Brought to you from
 West Cornwall, UK