Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00119)

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

 Page 6 Vol. 1 has Mandukya Upanishad (2.28).  When I first read this I
thought -- the Mandukya only has 12 verses, what can 2.28 mean?  Well,
Gaudapada has famous commentary that is often bound together with the
Upanishad, maybe 2.28 means the 28th verse of commentary on verse 2 of
the Mandukya.  Nope. There is nothing like "supreme, and not supreme
(paravara)" in that 28th verse or anywhere near.  However if one goes to
the Mundaka Up. II, 2, 8 -- there it is.  Now I suppose one can build up
much good merit with this detective work.  What why not just consider it
a mistake in editing, proofing, writing etc. of the SD?

By the way, Boris de Zirkoff's edition has it correct.

Best,

--
<> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles
	"Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it."
		Blavatsky