Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00186)

Tony wrote:

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


Daniel replies:

With or without the phrase left out by Nicholas, HPB is talking about
"errors". She acknowledges that "very likely" errors will be found in
THE SECRET DOCTRINE.  Of course, if you are DETERMINED to read some
other meaning into the statement, you can, no doubt, do so.  But the
obvious meaning of the passage is confirmed by the other HPB statement I
originally quoted:

"Thus mistakes have been made in 'Isis Unveiled,' in 'Esoteric
Buddhism'... and more than one mistake is likely to be found in the
present work [SD]."

Of course, you *may* contend that there are 48 other interpretations of
this latter statement.

*Okay, Tony, I answered your question, now please answer mine.*

In light of these 2 statements (above) by Madame Blavatsky, can you
acknowledge that there may be errors and mistakes in The Secret
Doctrine?

Also I would appreciate if you would answer the questions I included in
my last email to you. These questions were:

Are there errors in the original 1877 edition of "Isis Unveiled"?
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?


Tony wrote:

> 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. . . .


Again Tony wrote to Nicholas:

>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.


Daniel replies:

First I will repeat what I said in my last email.

"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'."

If you (and Paul Bazzer) believe you have an insight into how the
student of the SD can see behind so-called "dead letter"
interpretations, then here is your chance to illustrate this method by
giving us some specifics from the metaphysical point of view as to other
possible meanings of Mandukya.  Please illustrate (not just for me and
Nicholas but for all interested readers of theos-talk) what other valid
interpretations can be used in the case [i.e., Mandukya] under
discussion.

Again, neither you nor Paul B. commented on the Wurzburg MSS of the SD
where HPB's text on this Upanishad gave the correct name of the
Upanishad and even the correct verse (2.2.8).  It is interesting that in
the published 1888 edition of the SD, this verse is referenced as
(2.28).  This change would suggest to my mind that the 1888  version may
be a typing/typesetting mistake.  In other words, the typist or
typesetter left out the second period.  And this mistake was not caught
at the proofreading stage.  But I would be most interested to also hear
your metaphysical interpretation of this, if either one of you have such
an interpretation.

I'm also going to pursue another "physical" solution to this problem.
On the various pages in the SD where this Upanishad is cited, we find
HPB giving an English translation within quotation marks:

SD I 6   "It is that which is supreme, and not supreme (paravara),"
explains Mandukya Upanishad (2.28).

SD I 14   It is beyond the range and reach of thought---in the words of
Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."

SD I 83   In the Mandukya (Mundaka) Upanishad it is written, "As a
spider throws out and retracts its web, as herbs spring up in the ground
. . . so is the Universe derived from the undecaying one" (I.I.7).

Where did HPB get these quotes, i.e., the words within quotation marks?
Is she translating the verses into English?  Or is Madame Blavatsky
QUOTING these verses from some English translation already in print?
For example, is she quoting from a SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST translation?
Etc.  If we can find an English translation with the same wording as
found in the SD quotes, what can we reasonably conclude from this
discovery?

Hoping that you will give clarifying explanations to the above and
resist the temptation to evade and obscure these important issues, I end
this email.

Daniel Caldwell