Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00076)

Tony wrote:

> The point where this seems to have started, is the fact that the SD was
> published in 2 volumes in 1888.
> Are you actually challenging this?
> A reasonable statement was made with regard to study: is there a
> connection
> between the SD being in 2 volumes: Cosmogenesis/Anthropogenesis, and the
> dual nature of manas.  A possible reason for it being in 2 volumes is
> karmic, cyclic, etc?
> As you haven't really addressed this it seems that you assert that there
> isn't a connection?  That is fine, but some see that there is.
> Some see the
> inverted commas.  Others don't.....  Some see the disc,  see that the
> original edition of the SD is significant,  see that the date 1888 is
> significant,  see the fact that the page number from page 60 is missing,
> ...others don't.

Why change/alter the original SD in the first place?  What
logical/rational/reasonable sense does it make for anyone to do this? Some
might describe changing/altering an author's work after they are 'dead and
buried', without their permission, as criminal.

Someone referred to the "merits" of the B de Z edition.  There are so-called
"merits" to a lot of things. A plague of rats could be said to have its
"merits" (garbage clearance); watching soap opera's 24 hours-a-day could be
said to have its "merits" (keeps the kids off the street); the 'revised' six
volume edition of The Secret Doctrine could be said to have its "merits"
(door stop) etc..

What about the actual/real merits of studying facsimiles/originals of the
SD?  What about these?  "Hence it must be left to the intuition and the
higher faculties of the reader to grasp, as far as he can, the meaning of
the allegorical phrases used.  Indeed, it must be remembered that all these
Stanzas appeal to the inner faculties rather than to the ordinary
compehension of the physical brain".(PROEM, 21).

The "ordinary comprehension of the physical brain" might well come up with a
plan to revise/tamper/re-edit that which it does not fully understand. . . .
at the same time destroying "the meaning"; "these Stanzas".  Where is the
merit in that?

Best wishes,
Paul.