Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00088)

Dear Eldon

>Paul:
>
>[speaking of the Boris de Zirkoff edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
>writing to Tony]
>
>>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.
>
>There are a few reasons why I prefer to use Boris' edition of
>THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
>
>First is the readability of the text. The lengthy quotes in the
>SD are typographically set apart from the body text, making it
>much easier to tell when HPB is writing and when it's someone
>she's quoting. This is not altering the author's words, but
>just a typographical facelift.

It does alter the form, sound, colour and rhythms, etc.
The Occult PATH isn't easy, so should we really be going for the easy
options, and at what PRICE.

A quick look and comparisson of the symbols on pages 4 & 5 of the PROEM will
immediately show up differences.
Could you explain why you think, for example, the third symbol has an
elongated H rather than a diameter, and why the last symbol has been given a
central point?
Surely with the pentagram reversed, the whole point is, that it doesn't have
a central point.  So why did Boris add it?  There are hundreds and hundreds
of these kinds of alterations.  All the way through.  The de Zirkoff SD is
like walking in a flower garden, where most of the flowers have had their
heads chopped off.
>
>Second is the accuracy in citations and in cited materials. It's
>a matter of scholarship, not one of altering an author's words,
>to go back to source materials, completing citations and correcting
>quotes. There's a degree of human error in setting up a book, and
>this helps eliminate the part than we can check up on.

The SD is about theosophy and occultism, not scholarship.  HPB criticises
scholars in the SD, and it is not difficult to see why.  It is said she
could read the books in the Akasha.  The Mahatmas say they can see what the
Author is really trying to say, (even though they might write it down
differently).  So perhaps the Akashic rendering is the correct one, and so
going to the printed books and altering the quotes, may not have any merit.
Reading from the akasha correctly does have merit.  Isn't this worth a
thought?  Surely as Theosophists we should be asking these questions?
As Paul quoted:
"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).

Please, please do have a closer look at the original SD, and the de Zirkoff
version.

Tony