Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00065)

Tony,

Thanks for your comments.  But have you had time
to REALLY read my article on volume III of the SD?

Are you interested
in finding the truth or simply believing what you
want to believe?   And I'm not trying to pick on
you. I've asked similar questions to Paul Johnson
and others.  Challenge my assertions but please also
challenge YOUR OWN.

I'm certainly interested in knowing the truth,
historically, occultly, etc. about Madame
Blavatsky, her teachers, her writings, The Secret
Doctrine, the teachings of Theosophy, etc.  And I
am certainly open to the "occult point of view", but
you will have to be more explicit in your comments if
you expect me and possibly others to understand what
you are getting at concerning this "occult point of
view."

Re the original text of the 3rd volume, which is to be partially
found in the  the Wurzburg MSS, I have photocopies of much of this
1886 work.  Mead and Besant had nothing to do with
this MSS.  In this 1886 MSS one can read the text of the
Stanzas and HPB's first commentaries, etc.
One can also COMPARE the HPB material as it appeared in this
1886 MSS with what later appeared in the 1897 Third volume
of the Secret Doctrine.  Portions of this Wurzburg MSS
has been published in Volume 14 of HPB's Collected
Writings. Have you studied this material in vol. 14??

If the real vol. 3 of the SD was published in 1897, aren't you
interested in it, even if Annie Besant edited HPB's material?
I certainly want to read what Blavatsky wrote without Besant's
editing and that is why I've made a study of the Wurzburg MSS of the
SD.

Concerning the SD, 2 volumes published in 1888:
I certainly prefer to study a facsimile edition of the
1888 Secret Doctrine, but that doesn't mean that the
Boris de Zirkoff edition doesn't have its merits.
The BdZ edition has an excellent index and a wonderful
bibliography.  Also Boris has annotated the original text
with references to original sources that HPB quoted from, etc.
The Historical introduction is also very helpful although
Bdz makes many erroneous statements in that Introduction.
The BdZ edition also gives in an appendix the original
version of the Stanzas of Dzyan as they are found in the
abovementioned 1886 Wurzburg MSS of the SD. Very valuable.

Also in the 14 volumes of the Collected Writings series, there
is much bio-bibliographical material on many of the authors and
subjects that HPB quotes from in the SD.  All of this material
in the 14 volumes of the CW helps the serious student to
appreciate and understand much of what Blavatsky writes in the SD.

Yes, I agree that in some cases Boris has made changes
in the text of the SD which I don't think are warranted.
But the serious student can use the BdZ edition to good use
if one keeps this in mind and also consults the original of the SD.

Also concerning HPB's Inner Group teachings published at the
end of Vol. 3 of the SD, have you read and studied the 2nd
edition of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY, published
by Point Loma Publications?  I discovered a copy of the
original text of these teachings and they were published in this
2nd edition.  Make no mistake, I want to have HPB's original
words without anyone's editing coming between them and me.

Dan

alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >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)
>