Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00180)

Nicolas:
>
>Tony:
>>You are trying to get some of us to say that there are errors in the
>>original 1888 edition of "The Secret Doctrine."
>
>If you want to know what I am "trying to do" -- why not ask me first?

That is fair coment.  The original mail was written to Daniel, and your name
added as it was referring to your quote.

All
>I'm saying is there are mistakes in the SD, both the original and the BdZ
>edition.  Also I am mystified why you keep ignoring the prosaic
>possibility. But I am not interested in changing your mindset.
>[...]

To repeat:
You made,
"Very likely errors, emanating from a desire diametrically opposite, will be
found in "The Secret Doctrine"  to  "Very likely errors... will be found in
THE SECRET DOCTRINE..."  as if you genuinely didn't see  "emanating from a
desire diametrically opposite"  This you decided not to include in your
quote from HPB.  When we study the SD we only see part of the picture, but
when a number study it together, a more rounded view can emerge.  A wider view.

So in a study group, for example, studying the first fundamental
proposition, one student might say to "in the words of Mandukya,
"unthinkable and unspeakable"", "that is referring to the Manukya
Upanishad," as you have.  That is fine, but it doesn't then have to be set
in stone (that doesn't become the mindset), so that another may say Mandukya
has something to do with higher manas, or another to say BTW there are 49
words in this proposition, something basic to Theosophy and The Secret
Doctrine, let's take in the whole proposition, and so on.

By altering the text and making Mandukya - Mandukya Upanishad, would seem to
be the mindset view, rather than the one that allows possibilities in the
comments of others.  Mandukya Upanishad is right from the *physical* point
of view, "emanating from a desire diametrically opposite" to the
metaphysical point of view, and none of us may know what that one is.  But
very likely the first fundamental proposition is metaphysically orientated.
>
>>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?
>
>If one goes to verse 7 of the Mandukya Up. you will find the words
>(allowing for different translators) "unthinkable and unspeakable."  So
>tell me why you think it is not from the Mandukya upanishad?

Never did say it wasn't.  But that there is a lot more too it than just that
one point of view, is a distinct possibility, and therefore the error is in
changing it in an edited SD.

As for
>stopping your self-expression -- I'm reading what you are writing -- so
>where are you restricted?
>[...]

Sure you are reading the quotes made by HPB, and what is being written, but
there is more than just the one way of seeing them, as we are both proving?

Regards

Tony