Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00182)

>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?

"dead-letter" method (which you
>seem to disdain)

 - dead-letter is necessary, but the words "dead-letter" imply dealing with
the shell, rather than the substance inside.
>
>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.

It is difficult to know.  It just isn't the case.

As you will have realised Daniel, we approach the SD differently.  Surely
that is a good and healthy thing?   Why does it have to come to a YES and NO
answer?  Is it so important?
When someone "corrects" the SD and says "Mandukya" should be "Mandukya
Upanishad", this denies other possibilities of what Mandukya might mean, and
effects the whole of the first fundamental proposition.  When that
alteration was made did the editior take into account the wider view, the
whole of the first fundamental proposition view, or just the dead letter.
We don't have to narrow it down, it can mean more than one thing. Quotations
have been made to support this view.  We are not talking (yes talking) about
one or two errors, we are talking about many, many alterations which go to
the very heart of the SD.

As regards your points about the errors in ISIS, one interesting thing is
that when the passage is repeated in the INTRODUCTORY to the SD, it is
written the same as it is in ISIS Vol. I, page 1 (apart from *Siphra"
becoming *Siphrah*). Hope you can see the funny side of it.  Which is the
error, to leave and perpetuate the error, or correct the error?

You never did address: "Very likely errors, emanating from a desire
diametrically opposite, will be found in "The Secret Doctrine".

Martin suggested we did some study on the SD.  It may be best just to use
the SDs we wish to, otherwise things will never go forward.  But at least
some views have been put forward so that others can decide whether they
would prefer to use the original SD of HPB and the Masters, or to use others
that have been altered and contain many thousands of alterations.

Thanks for all your comments and views.
Best
Tony.
May we just finish with the last part of that lovely quote Paul made from
the Mahatma Letters:

"......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".