Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00173)

Dear Daniel and Nicolas

Some time back Paul Johnson seemed to be trying to illicit out of some of us
that HPB told a lie, or was it three lies?

You are trying to get some of us to say that there are errors in the
original 1888 edition of "The Secret Doctrine."

Much depends on the VIEWPOINT.

Nicolas has quoted HPB as saying:
>>"Very likely errors... will be found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Why should
>>any of us... pose for infallibility?

This is how Nicholas sees it.

How do you see it Daniel?

Here is this footnote in full:
"*No one has ever dreamt of denying that "Esoteric Buddhism" was a
"trustworthy presentation" of the Master's teaching *as a whole*.  That
which is asserted is simply that some *personal* [please note *personal* is
in italics] speculations of its author were faulty, and led to erroneous
conclusions, (a) on account of their incompleteness, and (b) because of the
evident anxiety to reconcile them with modern *physical* science, instead of
metaphysical philosophy.  Very likely errors, emanating from a desire
diametrically opposite, will be found in "The Secret Doctrine."  Why should
any of us - aye, even the most learned in occult lore among theosophists -
pose for infalibility?  Let us humbly admit with Socrates "all that we know
is, that *we know nothing*"; at any rate nothing in comparison to what we
have still to learn."

Another view of the bit Nicolas is referring to is:

"Very likely errors, emanating from a desire diametrically opposite, will be
found in "The Secret Doctrine."

This was the point trying to be made when quoting the following from the SD
earlier:
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."

So with regard to
>> >SD, I, 83:
>> >
>> >"(a) In the Mandukya (Mundaka) Upanishad it is written . . . . . "

Nicolas by what he said has only checked it out in a *physical* way by
checking it out in the books, and has therefore said Boris de Zirkoff is
right, as Boris de Zirkoff himself has done.  This, with due respect, just
seems to be dealing with the dead-letter.

But perhaps there is another reason (or many other reasons) why HPB and the
Masters put it the way it is.  Perhaps there is something metaphysical about
it? Do we know for certain there isn't?

In the first fundamental proposition Boris adds in the word Upanishad, after
Mandukya (which he puts in italics).  "in the words of Mandukya,
"unthinkable and unspeakable."" is how HPB and the Masters put it.  Does it
have to be referring to the Mandukya Upanishad?  Wouldn't you allow others
you may be studying "The Secret Doctrine" with to express another view?

The first fundamental proposition in the original is 49 words (7x7; 49
fires,  races, etc.)  Don't you think that is interesting of something that
is so fundamental and sublime and beautiful in "The Secret Doctrine?"  But,
if you don't, do you want to deny it to others?

The point being made is that every student of the SD should be allowed that
choice, however odd or rediculous it may appear to others, without some
authoratitive editor coming in and saying it should be this.  Just the
mention of things like karma, reincarnation, vegetarianism, theosophy, etc,
seem rediculous to some, or is it many?

Best wishes in your studies of the SD

Tony.