Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00150)

Dallas,

You have hit the nail on the head in your comments below.
Thanks for your input.

Daniel

W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>
> Sept 10th 1998
>                 Re:  SD  Original Edition and altered Editions
>
> Dallas offers:
>
> To cut the debate short, why not adopt the suggestion made in a
> current posting concerning the alterations/changes/emendations in
> THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE ?
>
> Publish the original as ORIGINAL.
>
> Put in an Appendix and therein list those changes that study an
> scholarship reveal to be necessary (?) alterations.  Give the
> reason why and the source to be checked by the student for
> accuracy.
>
> I have found that in matters relating to Orientalism and the
> interpretation of ancient scriptures, the arguments are endless.
>
> What is then valuable ?
>
> Precisely that freedom (mentioned also in a current posting) that
> enables the reader/student to do his own checking of the findings
> of others.
>
> Above all, I would encourage independent evaluation of what HPB
> and the masters have written.  I mean,  What are the IDEAS that
> are being conveyed ?  How do they fit into the scheme so
> carefully outlined ?
>
> One of the difficulties is rendering information suitable to our
> understanding in this plane and condition of matter as to the
> relations between every one of the "49 fires" as and when one or
> the other is operative under the scheme of the Rounds, Globes,
> and Races, etc....  Also to be taken into account is the triple
> evolutionary scheme as outlined in SD I 181.  And I 247  II 79,
> 241, 247,  and 671.
>
> I think that it is symptomatic of our race and age that we "choke
> over gnats" while accepting mountains of inaccurate and
> speculative "authoritarian hypotheses."
>
> All changes or scholarly findings ought to find place in an
> ADDENDUM to the original text, so that all can be reviewed by the
> student.
>
> No one likes to find that someone else has interposed their
> thinking (however learned) between himself and the original.
> That is the height of presumption, in my esteem.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
> From: Eldon B Tucker
> Sent:   Thursday, September 10, 1998 1:21 PM
> Subject: Boris SD
>
> There are a number of issues regarding the Boris de
> Zirkoff edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE. The most
> important one that affects us, as theosophical students
> with computer access, is one of copyright law.
>
> The original SECRET DOCTRINE is in the public
> domain, and any of up may computerize it and
> do what we like to make it widely available. The
> same is not true of Boris' edition, which is under
> copyright by Theosophical Publishing House. We'll
> all be dead of old age before it enters the public
> domain.
>
> As to the various smaller issues involved, and my
> own vote/preference ...
>
> * incomplete citations
>
>   Should be corrected/filled in if the source
>   document could be located and correctly identified.
>
> * inaccurate quoting
>
>   Should be corrected if the source document could
>   be located and correctly identified.
>
> * quotes in body text
>
>   Should follow standard publishing convention,
>   breaking out the quotes typographically in some
>   manner, like in smaller type as in the Boris edition.
>
> * inaccurate, inconsistent, out-of-date transliteration
>
>   Should be corrected to follow standard scholarly
>   conventions regarding Sanskrit and other foreign
>   languages, if it's clear what the word is that is
>   being corrected.
>
> * pagination
>
>   Should be flexible, with typographic control
>   exercised by the reader as to font, point size,
>   page layout, etc., but with end of page markers to
>   show original pagination (e.g. after the last word
>   of page 634 would be "[634]" in boldface).
>
> * obsolete words
>
>   Should be revised if there's no ambiguity over what
>   the word is, like "milliard" being replaced with
>   "billion".
>
> While I agree with the practice of passing down what
> we have been given unaltered, I'd say that what we've
> been given is a living body of ideas, a form of knowledge
> and understanding. To pass down these ideas unaltered
> means that we keep our books readable, and sometimes
> present the ideas in newer ways, supplementing the
> source writings with books and articles of our own.
>
> I don't consider the position on the printed page of
> any particular word, nor the numerology of any
> English word, as having anything but accidental
> significance.
>
> The tradition that we're passing down does not consist
> of physical artifacts, including the facsimile image of
> the pages of the original edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> The tradition is an accurate and spiritual-connected
> understanding of the ideas that are contained therein,
> ideas that can only be imperfectly contained on the
> printed page.
>
> There are places in THE SECRET DOCTRINE where it
> goes so deep that we may be unable to follow the
> author in our thought, and possibly misunderstand
> what is being said. In our misunderstanding, if we
> were correcting the text, we might make a change to
> the words that loses the original, deep meaning.
>
> This is certainly possible, but I'd say that there's
> a spectrum of materials and depth to the writings,
> and on the shallow end of that spectrum are obvious
> mistakes that detract from the value of the work,
> mistakes that can and should be corrected. Somewhere
> towards the middle of the spectrum are words that
> are less certain, words that we should probably leave
> untouched. And on the far end of the spectrum are
> what may be called sacred writings, words we can
> puzzle over and contemplate, but which we may never
> quite grasp in their entirety.
>
> The three-volume edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE
> erred on the side of being overly liberal in changes,
> by individuals that thought, perhaps, that they knew
> better than HPB herself what was true about Theosophy.
> Sticking to the facsimile edition errs, I think, on
> the side of being overly conservative, and handicaps
> the would-be student. The Boris edition comes in the
> middle ground, as I see it, with judicious, well-informed
> corrections of obvious errors, and useful supplemental
> materials included. I'm happy with it for my personal
> studies, although, because of copyright considerations,
> I'd have to limit myself to the verbatim or facsimile
> editions when quoting or reprinting portions of the
> book.
>
> -- Eldon