Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00129)

Dear Daniel,

> 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.

Please see Tony's posting of today (in reply to Nicholas's comment).

Kindest regards,
Paul


> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>