Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00113)

Daniel wrote:

> Paul, thanks for your interesting observations.  But concerning your
> comments about the typesetting of the SD, does this also apply to HPB's
> other works too?  HPB writes in a number of places about simple typos
> appearing in Isis Unveiled. Why are there typos in Isis?  Also see
> the Mahatma Letters where KH mentions mistakes in the 1877 edition of
> Isis?  Why didn't the Masters correct these typos and other mistakes
> before Isis was published?

Masters make it clear that SD is not an Isis part 2, or whatever.  It (SD)
is a completely different ball game.  Where do HPB or any of the Masters
mention mistakes or typo's in the *SD* after it was published?

> Printer typos also appear in HPB's articles in The Theosophist and
> Lucifer.  HPB from time to time even points these printing mistakes out
> in later issues.  Why didn't the Masters correct these before
> publication?

Who can answer that one?

> And are you saying that there are no printer typos in the 1888 edition
> of The Secret Doctrine?  Are you suggesting that all alleged typos are
> really part of the occult code embedded in the S.D.?

What "alleged typos" in the 1888 SD are these?

> And what about the Key to Theosophy and the Voice of the Silence?

For example, understand that at least one later edition of "The Voice of the
Silence" omitts a significant/important Glossary note concerning Prateyeka
Buddhas (synonym of *spiritual* selfishness).

The point about 'revised', 'corrected', 'edited' editions is that we
invariably end up with "flowers without heads".  Why not leave the flowers
alone, so that future generations can appreciate them just as they are?  Why
the monkey-meddling tendency which *assumes* it (personally) "knows" what
the author really meant; that it (personally) knows best?  How much
conceited arrogance are us humanoid creatures capable of?!

> Consult the original edition or a facsimile of the Voice. On p.
> 80 HPB wrote:
>
> "These . . . count Dhasena, Dhyana and Samadhi and embraces the three
> under the generic name of SANNYAMA."
>
> Dr. H.J. Spierenburg in his THE BUDDHISM OF H.P. BLAVATSKY quotes this
> and then comments (p. 166 fn):
>
> "I have not found the terms Dhasena and SANNAYAMA."

Exactly.  How many scholars have "found" Senzar, for example?

Best wishes,
Paul.