Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00115)

Daniel Caldwell 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?


Paul Bazzer replied:


> Masters make it clear that SD is not an Isis part 2, or whatever.  It (SD)
> is a completely different ball game. . . .


Daniel Caldwell comments:


Well, The S.D. may have been a "completely different ball game" but
from everything we know about the writing of both Isis and the SD, the
same processes, etc. were used.  Both Olcott and Judge and others
indicate that the Masters were as much involved in Isis as in the S.D.
I'm sure you've read for example Olcott's Old Diary Leaves I in which he
gives graphic descriptions of how the Masters worked through HPB on the
writing of the MSS.  Judge says as much.  So if there could be typos
and  mistakes in Isis, why not in the Secret Doctrine? If you can admit
that there were ACTUAL typos in Isis, why are you so unwilling to admit
that there could also be some in the SD?