Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00176)

Daniel wrote:

> So I would conclude from the words in your last email (quoted below)
> that you *actually do maintain* that:
>
> There are no mistakes/errors/typos in HPB's 1888 edition of THE SECRET
> DOCTRINE.

Please re-read the cut'n paste.

> If this conclusion is correct, then how do you reconcile that belief
> with what HPB herself wrote (& Nicholas just posted)?? Here is the quote
> from Nicholas:
>
> >In addition, here is another HPB quote, published in Nov. 1888, >LUCIFER.
> >Also in CW 10, 181fn.
>
> >"Very likely errors... will be found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Why should
> >any of us... pose for infallibility?

See Tony's fuller extract of the above and comments.

Extract from Letter XXIX):

"I am not a fine scholar, Sahibs, like my blessed Brother; but nevertheless,
I believe, I understand the value of words. And if I do, then I am at a loss
to understand, what in my P.S. could have provoked the ironical displeasure
against me of Mr. Hume?  We of the Indo-Tibetan hovels never quarrel (this
is in answer to some expressed thoughts in relation to the subject).
Quarrels and even discussions we leave to those, who unable to take in a
situation at a glance are thereby forced before making up their final
decision to anything to analyse and weigh one by one, and over and over
again every detail.  Whenever  we - at least those of us who are
*dikshita* - seem, therefore, to an European not "quite sure of our facts"
it may be often due to the following peculairity.  That which is regarded by
most men as a "fact" to us may seem but a simple RESULT, an after thought
unworthy of our attention, generally attracted but to *primary facts*.
Life, esteemed Sahibs, when even prolonged, is too short to burden our
brains with flitting details - mere shadows.  When watching the progress of
a storm we fix our gaze upon the producing Cause and leave the clouds to the
whims of the breeze which shapes them.  Having always the means on hand -
whenever absolutely needed - of bringing to our knowledge minor details we
concern ourselves but with the main facts.  Hence we can hardly be
*absolutely wrong* - as we are often accused by you, for our conclusions are
never drawn from secondary data but from the situation as a whole".

> AN ASIDE:
>   Paul, when HPB writes:  "There are more secrets of
> initiation given out in the *Introductory* Chapt. than in *all* Isis.":
>
> exactly what "*Introductory* Chapt." is she referring to? Is this
> material in SD, 1888 edition? Volume I or where?

The full paragraph reads:

"Well, please a bit of business.  I have *absolute need* of Mohini for S.D.
and the glossary of Sanskrit words and other things unless he comes, or
copies, all such words from MSS that I will send to you.  I can never be
ready by next autumn and this work is another kind of a "hairpin" than
*Isis*. There are more secrets of initiation given out in the *Introductory*
Chapt. than in *all* Isis.  And what comes after is still more interesting.
But I am utterly miserable about its *mechanical* arrangement.  I have
written and re-written about twenty times this blessed Chapt.  I have cut
off and shifted the paras: and passages and sections and sub-sections until
I am sick of it.  Fancy Masters giving out the secrets of the "Divine
Hermaphrodite" even! and so on."

Any thoughts on the "*mechanical* arrangement", BTW?  Or is this just an
aside?

To re-qoute the Master:

"Quarrels and even discussions we leave to those, who unable to take in a
situation at a glance are thereby forced before making up their final
decision to anything to analyse and weigh one by one, and over and over
again every detail."

How we love to indulge!

Best wishes,
Paul.