Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00084)

HAS IT BEEN ALTERED BEFORE PUBLISHING ?

Sept 7th 1998

Dear Daniel:

Re: 3RD VOLUME of the SECRET DOCTRINE
I have carefully read your article when you originally published
it and sent it to me.
The one aspect that is unclear and, to me, important is:
How much did Mrs. Besant (whom Mr. Mead says was solely
responsible for its editing) change and edit it from what HPB
wrote ?
Yes, it is based on those unedited and unprinted MSS that HPB had
in her possession. But if those have been changed and altered as
the "Third and Revised EDITION of 1893" was, how can we depend
absolutely on them ?
This 3rd and Revised EDITION (not Volume) is shown to contain
about 40,000 alterations from the original 1888 edition (the
original) as published. A number of student are of the opinion
that the "ORIGINAL EDITION OF 1888" contains certain codes, and
some of those are dependent on the phrasing and the
capitalization and the actual words that HPB and the Masters used
in that book.
If that concept is thrown aside, then the "3rd VOLUME can be
considered as possibly authentic in INTENT, but not as to
CONTENT. In other words it may not be consistent with the
ORIGINAL MSS that HPB had left.
I also notice the following:
Some of those MSS were published posthumously in LUCIFER. And
they have been accepted as original HPB.
Mr. Judge made no written protest that I have heard of concerning
the changes in the "3rd and Revised Edition of the S D published
in 1893."
The content and statements made in some of the articles published
by Mrs. Besant as part of the "THIRD VOLUME OF THE S D " do not
closely dovetail (in my esteem) with statements made and
orthography used in the ORIGINAL 1888 S D, and in several of her
articles published after that date. It is therefore difficult
for me to agree to use those as a basis for presenting original
Theosophy and its doctrines.
In other words they show a peculiar lack of cohesiveness and
continuity with those statements and teachings she made in those
writings she actually EDITED HERSELF. Now it may be argued that
these are minor and perhaps they are also insignificant. However
they do represent a DIFFERENCE. So in my eyes I have set them
aside as having been tampered with.
It is also significant to me that after HPB's death Mrs. Besant
arrogated to herself the right and "duty ?" of editing HPB as she
thought HPB would like it. This manifests as early as 1893 --2
years after HPB's death. Mrs. Besant's subsequent writings show
this tendency to divergence and ultimately this has brought an
important change in the presentation of THEOSOPHY.
One need only look at the contents of LUCIFER, the VAHAN, and the
THEOSOPHIST, comparing them with the contents of THE PATH and the
THEOSOPHICAL FORUM during the years 1894 to 1896 (during the
attacks on Mr. W.Q.Judge's character and standing in the T S) to
realize how this divergence was magnified as the FIRST OBJECT of
the T S ( Brotherhood ) was abrogated.
In addition if one desires to catalog the divergence one need
only consult Margaret Thomas' book THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY to
notice that changes in Theosophical presentation that had become
prevalent between 1891 and 1923. And these are still in use and
most members of the T S are unaware of the importance of Mr.
Judge's writings, as they have been neglected. Even HPB's
writings in their original form have been neglected. Apparently
only those who are scholarly delve into and resurrect for their
own study and work those neglected writings - and profit
therefrom.
If HPB had edited and published that 3rd Volume, then, OK.
However the contents of that 3rd VOLUME, as I say above show an
incohateness that I find troubling. And I can only speak for
myself and my studies.
Dallas

> From: Graye/Caldwell
> Date: Sunday, September 06, 1998 10:00 AM
> Subject: 3rd volume of the Secret Doctrine

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 instead of *a priori* dismissing it because
it doesn't fit in with their idea about what should
or should not have happened.
Daniel