Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00127)

In Paul's email below, he writes:

"But they'd be missing the point."

Please Paul, tell us what is THE point?

I'm serious.  Tell us what is the point.

Daniel



Bazzer wrote:
>
> Nicholas replied:
>
> >>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?
>
> Why not consider it as Mandukya Upanishad (2.28).?  "Mandukya" is different
> from "Mundaka".  Should someone correct it?  A scholar/editor/expert could
> easily justify such a correction on the (exoteric) basis that Mandukya and
> Mundaka are the same.  But they'd be missing the point.
>
> > By the way, Boris de Zirkoff's edition has it correct.
>
> Correct according to who?  What other changes do you feel are "correct"?
>
> A question for everyone. . . .
>
> Which is "correct": Tibet or Thibet?  The difference is a single, lowercase,
> letter ("h"); maybe a similar magnitude of difference as between 2.28 and
> II, 2, 8 (see Nicholas's example above); a difference which could easily be
> overlooked/ignored/"corrected".
>
> Which is "correct": Tibet or Thibet?
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul.
>
>