Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00064)

Daniel wrote:
>Re the 3rd volume of the SD,
>I would suggest that we indeed do have the third
>volume of the Secret Doctrine.  See my article
>entitled:
>The myth of the "missing" third volume of the Secret Doctrine
>
>It is on the Internet at:
>
>http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/sdiiimyt.htm
>
>I would hope students would look at this historical
>evidence

As difficult as it obviously is for us, why not try and look at it from the
occult point of view.
Just take a copy of the original edition of the SD and the third edition of
the SD (vol. I & II) and note and think about the changes made by Mead and
Annie Besant.  It is also valuable to think about why it happened.  It sort
of had to didn't it, when thinking about occult power?  Then think about the
similar changes that will have been made to the material in the so called
vol. III.  When it appeared HPB was not arround, and going by the
Theosophical literature, it is prety certain that the Mahatmas weren't
around (as such) either.  HPB was the amanuensis that in a sense made it all
happen.  Annie Besant and Mead weren't occultists?  How could they possibly
Know how to edit an occult work?

 instead of *a priori* dismissing it because
>it doesn't fit in with their idea about what should
>or should not have happened.
Are you referring to Mead and Annie Besant who decided to remove all
reference to the 3rd and 4th volumes of the SD, which were in the original,
when they published their third edited edition, so that folk couldn't make
up their own minds?  The facsimiles weren't around then and it would have
been difficult to get the original edition, for many reasons. Just the
pressure of the third edition coming out.  The de Zirkoff one can have the
same effect on people (until they start looking).  The "corrected" and up to
date one - the one that has all been put "right".

What did happen, is that the SD was published in 2 volumes in 1888.  Or are
you disputing this?
It was revised by Mead and Annie Besant and published in 2 volumes in 1893
(just 2 years after HPB died - "they" couldn't wait could they?)
A so called 3rd volume in 1897 -
when referring to the original HPB/Masters 1888 SD it was always to be 2 or
4 volumes.

What the real pity is, having written this, it is easy to see how it has
taken us away from the study at hand.

>From the simple idea of the SD being published in 2 vols:
Cosmogenesis-Anthropogenesis in 1888 (a Karmic fact), and is there
significance in this Karmic/cyclic fact.  Does this have any reference to
the dual nature of Manas?  Do you think that Cosmogenesis/Anthropogenesis
has any relation to the dual nature of Manas?

Tony

"**Dan*, now become in modern Chinese and Tibetan phonetics *ch'an,* is the
general term for the esoteric schools, and their literature.  In the old
books, the word *Janna* is defined as "to reform one's self by meditation
and knowledge," a second *inner* birth.  Hence Dzan, *Djan* phonetically,
the Book of *Dzyan*."
(SD I,p. xx)