Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00128)

In the email below, Tony writes:

"Don't you mean incorrect?
It is interesting what you say, but only correct as far as you (and some
others) are concerned.  Crystallised and finished with?"

Please expand on this.  What are you getting at?

In your opinion why is Nicholas' point not correct?  Why is
it incorrect in your opinion?

What do you mean by "crystallised and finished with?"?

You and Paul seem to talk in some kind of code.

Please expand on your points.

Daniel



alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Nicholas Weeks wrote:
> >
> >>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.
>
> Don't you mean incorrect?
> It is interesting what you say, but only correct as far as you (and some
> others) are concerned.  Crystallised and finished with?
>
> Do you feel by adding the point to the centre of the pentagram reversed on
> page 5  has made it correct?  Or do you feel it doesn't really matter?
>
> In the first few pages of the INTRODUCTORY, there is quite a bit about
> "Esoteric Buddhism," and Budh-ism, *Budha,* "Budh," *to know,* etc.,
> highlighting among other things the difference in spellings, and the
> significance of this.
> And yet one of the main pre-occupations of the de Zirkoff edition is
> altering/"correcting" the spellings.
>
> SD II, p.22 (end of footnote): "The teaching is offered as it is understood;
> and as there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory,
> that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical
> aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical."
>
> SD II p.68 (f.n.): "This difference and the change of cyphers in the last
> three triplets of figures, the writer cannot undertake to account for.
> According to every calculation, once the three hundred millions are
> subtracted, the figures ought to stand, 1, 655, 884, 687.  But they are
> given as stated in the Tamil calendar above-named and as they were
> translated."
> It may be necessary to turn to the text in the SD to understand this better.
>
> "Reincarnations in Tibet": "We are well aware that the name is generally
> written *Pugdal,* but it is erroneous to do so.  "Pugdal" means nothing, and
> the Tibetans do not give meaningless names to their sacred buildings . .
> .Phag-dal derives its name from . . ." (Theos. vol. III, p.147). In this
> particular article there are over 100 alterations made in the "Collected
> Writings," version, mainly to spellings. (The Works BTW are much truer to
> the original articles)
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tony
>
>