Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00175)

Tony wrote:

> 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.


Daniel replies:

To give CONTRAST to what you write above, I will repeat what I have
written before and add more details.

Tony, are there errors in the original 1877 edition of "Isis Unveiled"?
Can you give a straightforward opinion?

Here is my opinion.  One can study the text of Isis and see some of
those errors.  One can use the scholarly "dead-letter" method (which you
seem to disdain) to document many of these errors.  But more
importantly, Madame Blavatsky herself, the Master Koot Hoomi and the
Master Morya state that there are indeed errors/mistakes/typos in Isis
Unveiled.  Do you accept their statements?  Do you accept their
VIEWPOINT?

Now *if* we did NOT have the statements by Blavatsky and the Masters
acknowledging the errors/mistakes/typos in Isis, I could envision a
scene in which Paul Bazzer and you could be having a similar discussion
with Nicholas and me about whether there really were errors, etc. in
Isis.

I know one beginning Theosophical student who studied Isis and came to
the independent conclusion that there was a mistake on p. 1, Volume I of
Isis where the text reads:  "the Divine Essence emanating from ADAM. . .
."  One day he discussed this with me and was blown away when I showed
him THE MAHATMA LETTERS where Master KH also indicated that that
statement was in error.  This new student had intended to read THE
MAHATMA LETTERS but hadn't got around to it at that stage in his
Theosophical studies.  I gave him that copy of THE MAHATMA LETTERS.  He
stayed up two nights devouring all of the Mahatma Letters.

This relatively new student was able to perceive the error without
knowing about KH's statement.

My main point here is that *without access to KH's statement* we could
be debating whether that statement in Isis is in error or not.  Probably
you and Paul would be inclined to see some deep occult meaning below the
surface but Koot Hoomi says it is just a mistake, an error.

Also from a careful study (maybe you would consider this a dead letter
method also) of the various testimonies (i.e. physical books, articles,
etc.) one can construct a pretty reliable picture of the direct help the
Mahatamas gave Madame Blavatsky in the writing of Isis.

In summary, although the Masters Morya, Koot Hoomi, Narayan and others
directly helped Blavatsky on the writing of Isis (for example, see what
HPB says about this help in ML, 3rd edition, top of p. 472), there were
still mistakes/errors/typos in Isis.

Now having also done a great deal of study on the history of the writing
of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, I conclude that the same Mahatmas helped her
with her magnum opus.  And (if we believe the testimony to be found in
books, articles) then the same occult processes, etc. were used in
writing the SD as were used in writing Isis.  If mistakes/errors/typos
could creep into the finished ISIS UNVEILED, I see no good reason not to
suspect that some mistakes, etc. are in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.  And I'm
sure Nicholas could probably provide a list of such alleged mistakes.

I will post again the two quotes I gave earlier today in another email.
These quotes by Blavatsky herself support some of what I have stated
above.

The 1st HPB quote:

"Save the direct quotations and the many afore specified and mentioned
MISPRINTS, ERRORS and MISQUOTATIONS, and the general make-up of *Isis
Unveiled*, for which I am in no way responsible, (a) every word of
information found in this work or in my later writings, comes from the
teachings of our Eastern Masters; and  (b) that many a passage in these
works has been written by me *under their dictation*.
...........................
Even for *The Secret Doctrine* there are about half-a-dozen Theosophists
who have been busy in editing it, who have helped me to arrange the
matter, correct the imperfect English, and prepare it for print."
>From HPB's article "My Books", April 1891.  CAPS ADDED.

Therefore, is there not room here for MISPRINTS, ERRORS and
MISQUOTATIONS creeping into *The Secret Doctrine*?

Another HPB QUOTE:

"Thus mistakes have been made in 'Isis Unveiled,' in 'Esoteric
Buddhism,' in 'Man,' in 'Magic:  White and Black,' etc., etc.; and more
than one mistake is likely to be found in the present work.  This cannot
be helped. . . . ."  SD, II, 640.  And why cannot this be helped?  Read
the rest of HPB's paragraph.

And from the context of the whole paragraph from which the above was
quoted, HPB is not referring to just "typos" when she uses the word
"mistake."

Now if you choose to ignore what HPB writes, then that is your choice.
You are free to believe whatever you want to, just as K. Paul Johnson is
free to believe whatever he wants to. I simply ask you to look at the
EVIDENCE much of which emanates from Blavatsky and the Masters.   Now to
another issue or two:

Tony wrote:

> 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?

Daniel replies:

Well, Tony, "with due respect", some of the material in the SD may also
deal with just literal, dead-letter things.  For example, HPB quoting a
passage from a published work.  Maybe, being human, she accidentally
leaves out two lines of text or accidentally misquotes the title. Even
the Masters admit that they are prone to such human errors!

And in regards to the following:

> 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?

Tony, PERHAPS, there is another reason......I agree.  But ALSO POSSIBLE
is that there is no other reason than that it is a mistake, an error.
Again, yes, PERHAPS, there is something metaphysical about it, but
perhaps there is nothing metaphysical about it.  "Do we know for certain
there isn't?"  Well, do we know for certain the opposite?  I'm not
saying that we should rush to judgment and assume there is nothing
metaphysical, below the surface, etc. in such an instance, but we should
also use some commonsense and reason and look at similar examples, even
those  provided by Blavatsky and the Mahatmas themselves.

And regarding Nicholas' points on the quotes from the Upanishad(s), he
gives specific evidence and reasoning in support of his so-called "dead
letter" interpretation.  On the other hand, you say that PERHAPS there
is some other reason (metaphysical or otherwise) but you provide no
evidence, no reasoning to support your view.  All you offer is
"perhaps". In all honesty, this approach of yours reminds me of K. Paul
Johnson's "method" used in his 3 books on Theosophy.

And let me end by restating that I myself prefer the facsimile editions
of Blavatsky's works.  And I would also prefer that any supposed
"corrections" to the original text should be put in an appendix with the
reasons, evidence for such corrections.  That way I can read the
original and then I can consider what the editor has concluded.

Daniel Caldwell