Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00118)

>alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>As you haven't really addressed this it seems that you assert that >there
>>isn't a connection?  That is fine, but some see that there is.  Some >see the
>>inverted commas.  Others don't.....  Some see the disc,  see that the
>>original edition of the SD is significant,  see that the date 1888 is
>>significant,  see the fact that the page number from page 60 is >missing,
>>...others don't.
>
>Tony,
>
>Thanks for your many comments.
>
>You make the statement that in THE SECRET DOCTRINE [Vol I] :
>
>"the page number from page 60 is missing. . . . "
>
>Upon turning to the facsimile edition published by
>Theosophical University Press in 1988, I see that in Volume One
>of that edition, there is NO page number for page 60.  Okay.
>
>BUT. . . BUT. . .
>
>on turning to the facsmile edition (1982 reprint) by the
>Theosophy Company, I find in Volume One that page 60 has
>a page number!!!!  60 is there.

Thanks for looking.  Yes, it is interesting.  In the 1925 facsimile edition
it starts off on the right hand corner (written in) of the page, and then in
later issues moves over to the left hand corner (written in) and then later
it looks printed in.

Some of the earlier Pasadena facsimiles have page 60 numbered, but then
later they have it as in the original.  Even on their internet edition they
put the 60 in square brackets.  They may or may not feel it is significant,
but they allow others that choice.

But you are missing the point.

One or two errors may have crept in the facsimile, and that is
understandable.  Theos Company  have done good work, firstly in doing a
facsimile of the original, and then keeping it in print at a very reasonable
price.  They are to be applauded.  What some of us are saying, is that the B
de Z Secret Doctrine has blatant alterations, page, after page, after page.
New people coming into Theosophy usually don't realise to what extent the
work has been altered, and that it is B de Zs Secret Doctrine, rather than
that of HPB and the Masters.
>
>Shades of horrors, the occult code has been tampered with!?
Which occult code are you referring to?
>What other occult codes have been edited in or out of this
>Theosophy Company edition?
Possibly one or two alterations occur in the whole 2 volumes, but they are
things that tend to blend with the text rather than codes, as per the page 60.
HPB refers to translations being tampered with and altered in the
INTRODUCTORY, as well as other places.

Do you feel that it was an error that page 60 is unnumbered?
Some don't think it was an error.

>Or maybe it is the TUP edition that is . . . . . . . . .
In the original page 60 isn't numbered.
>
>Which reprint really preserves the occult code of 1888?

Both facsimiles preserve the original SD of HPB and the Masters.

It is incredible that one has to go outside the Adyar TS to get a facsimile
of the original edition.  At times one wonders if they know what the word
facsimile means.  See page 8a to the fairly recent edition of "The Voice of
the Silence", Wheaton, TPH: "The text of this edition is faithful to that of
the original publication, being a facsimile reprint of the 1889 version.  A
few obvious typographical errors that might confuse the reader have been
corrected."
A contradiction in terms wouldn't you say, and that is obvious?  Anything
that seems obvious in Theosophy, inevitably turns out not to be.

As you have found one of the 2 or 3 alterations in the Theos Co facsimile,
would you like to comment in like manner about some of the thousands of
alterations made by Boris de Z?

Tony