Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00110)

I first quote below part of what Dallas wrote and then follow that with
my own detailed comments.

Daniel

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote in part:


> 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.

..................

> 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.
...............................

> 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,

Thanks for your comments.  But can we try to TEST some of your
statements in order to clarify and actually determine how much editing
was done to HPB's text in SD Volume III?  Can we devise a test to either
verify or falsify these statements made?

Let's do an experiment.

Go to Volume III of the SD:

Read Section XXIII (23) titled:  "What the Occultists and Kabalists Have
to Say."

And

Read Section XVII (17) titled:  "Apollonius of Tyana".

Now in your statements quoted above, you say among many things:

> 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.

Okay, after having read the above 2 sections from Vol. III, do you find
"an incohateness" in these two sections?    If you find such, please
state an example or two illustrating what you find TROUBLESOME in these
2 sections.

Now let us do the second part of the experiment.

On Dec. 10, 1886, Colonel Olcott (in India) received a package from HPB.
This package contained the MSS copy of Volume I of the SD (part of what
is now called the Wurzburg MSS).

18 days later [on Dec. 28, 1886], Colonel Olcott comments publicly on
this MSS:

". . . the entire MSS. of the first . . . [volume] . . .that Madame
Blavatsky is now writing upon the Secret Doctrine, is in my hands. . .
."

This MSS in Colonel Olcott's hands contains the above two articles which
you have hopefully read:

(1)  What the Occutlists and Kabalists have to say

and

(2)  in 2 parts:  "Who was the Adept of Tyana?" and "The Roman Catholic
Church Dreads the Publication of the Real Life of Apollonius."

This 1886 Volume 1 became Volume 3 sometime in the summer of 1887,
according to Bertram Keightley's testimony.  Bertram writes:

"Finally we laid before her a plan, suggested by the character of the
matter itself, viz., to make the work consist of four volumes....
Further, instead of making the first volume to consist, as she had
intended, of the history of some great Occultists, we advised her to
follow the natural order of exposition, and begin with the Evolution of
Cosmos, to pass from that to the Evolution of Man, then to deal with the
historical part in a third volume treating of the lives of some great
Occultists; and finally, to speak of Practical Occultism in a fourth
volume should she ever be able to write it.

This plan was laid before H.P.B., and it was duly sanctioned by her."

So Volume I became Volume III.  THIS REARRANGEMENT OF THE VOLUMES IS THE
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS CONTAINED IN VOLUME III (1897).  This key
has been overlooked by almost all Blavatsky students during the last 80
years.

And in April 1888, Madame Blavatsky herself tells the T.S. American
Convention:

"The MSS. of the first three volumes is now ready for the press." (CW 9:
247).

The 2 above named sections became part the third volume MSS.  AND THEY
THEN SHOW UP IN 1897 IN THE THIRD VOLUME OF THE SD.  For details see my
paper http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/sdiiimyt.htm

Now back to the 1886 MSS.  The 1886 MSS version of these 2 sections
under discussion were finally published for the public to read. See:

Theosophist, April, May and June, 1933
Theosophist, October and November, 1933

In COMPARING the Wurzburg 1886 version with the Volume III 1897 version,
one will see that there are changes and some additions to the 1897 text,
but the changes appear quite trivial and the meaning in both versions
appear similar if not identical.  And it is quite possible that HPB made
many of these changes as she was working on this third volume MSS in the
months *before her death*.

It is this kind of testing (and research) that will show the openminded
student that Volume III (1897) contains the material intended to be part
of that volume by HP Blavatsky herself.  By doing ADDITIONAL comparisons
of the Wurzburg version with the 1897 version, the student can determine
the amount of editing that was probably done, etc. etc.

I hope you see the purpose of the testing and what point(s) I'm
attempting to convey.  If not, please let me know and I will try to
explain it better.

Daniel Caldwell