Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00191)

Sept 13th 1998

		Re:  checking out the various editions of the S D .

		The source of Vol. 3 and various rearrangements
			That HPB made of her MSS so as to produce
			What we have of the 1888 edition of the SD

		Her statements concerning Vols. 3 and 4 which she made
			In the published vols. 1 and 2 of 1888.

Dear Daniel:

	About the mixing of MSS in the 3rd, 2nd and 1st volumes of SD
prior to their publication as 2 volumes in 1888.  I have followed
your arguments when you originally issued them and at that time
they appeared scholarly and reasonable to me.  Mentally I made
the proviso that HPB had completely rearranged her presentation
before the issuing of Vols. 1 and 2 in 1888, so that the MSS sent
to Adyar from Wurzburg had been incorporated in other places and
parts and also rewritten when incorporated in those 2 volumes.
Your tracing of sources may be quite correct, but when HPB issued
the first 2 volumes in 1888, that was it.

She included remarks here and there in those 2 volumes concerning
the work in progress for the 3rd and 4th volumes, which she
outlined as to content and purpose.
Some of that MSS material was destroyed as I understand it , and
some was still in her and others' drawers as unfinished work
being edited, etc, etc.   I said earlier that not having the
original MSS none of us know for sure if they have been altered
in any way before being sent to press as part of the 3rd volume
of the S D  published and edited by Besant in 1897.  HPB had no
final say in that work, unfortunately.

Back in the 1920's/30's several students who desired to study the
original writings of HPB compared the 1888 Edition of S D with
the 1893 "Third and Revised Edition" and as you note this was
issued before the death of Mr. Judge, and he said nothing that I
could find about those changes.  Did he "accept" them ?  Reading
his articles in PATH magazine from 1893-1896 we find that he
wrote about the study of various aspects of Theosophy in a way to
encourage students to read and think for themselves, and above
all to learn what Theosophy has to teach.  He always stressed
application to daily life.  [ Had he protested and started the
kind of comparison we now contemplate, much valuable time would
have been given to those details, and equally valuable time would
have been lost from learning the basics of Theosophy and making
personal applications of them.  We have to choose, and decide
where we are going to spend our time. ]

The 1897 "third volume of the SD" is quite another matter.  HPB
did not edit the contents for publication that I know of, and in
fact those MSS were taken from various sources, her drawers,
Mead, Besant, Keightly, etc... and then Besant made herself
responsible for publishing them.  It should also be noted that in
subsequent editions of the SD that Adyar TPH issued mention of
the nature of the contents of the 3rd and 4th volumes, on which
HPB had made remarks, were expunged.  At this date we do not know
why.  It is a matter of history.  We do not know why this was
done.  I would call it a sad commentary on the integrity of those
who followed HPB and made themselves responsible for misleading
her newer students to that extent. ]

Those early students who made their comparisons, reported in over
40,000 changes made in the text. --- some major and some minor.
I compared the first page of the SD using both editions for
myself, and found over 30 changes.  That was enough use of my
time - I was 18 then.

I have not compared Boris' SD with the 1888 edition.

I do not have the time to re-do all that work.  I am satisfied
that there are changes and whether they are good or bad, whether
they amplify or detract, is not the problem, PROVIDING THEY ARE
IDENTIFIED, so that trusting student can know whether that was
what HPB wrote OR NOT.

Let me go back to my suggestion (though probably not original at
all) : that all reprints in which students who followed HPB
isolated and decided on what they thought was the kind of
accuracy needed to improve that book, LEAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXT
UNCHANGED, but place "Bullets" or some other markers in the
margins, and in an ADDENDUM, page by page, add their comments and
proposed changes.  That would be fair to future students, and
also raise their personal integrity higher - but what has
happened, although irreversible, need not be perpetuated
hereafter.

I know and have been watching the progress of those scholars who
have tried to make the BIBLE more accurate and in line with the
earliest versions they can find.

 That were current say, 50 years ago, were accepted and had been
accepted for years as correct and ultimate accuracy - now they
are challenged and found to be factually inaccurate.  What about
all those people who for years decades, centuries... have
followed inaccurate texts and had distorted views of what the
BIBLE taught ?  Who takes responsibility for that ?

The assumption that mankind is inherently ignorant leads to a
deadening of the intellect, and those who are sly and clever find
that they can gain domination over those who choose to remain
"sheep."

Theosophy goes diametrically against such an assumption of
inherent ignorance, and posits an immortal SELF incarnated in the
man of flesh for the purpose of encouraging that same man (with
the reflection of the Higher Mind in his brain) to become
independently free of any dominance other than his own integrity
and power of thinking and choosing.  Motive, will, decision is
the real key to individual progress.  How do we get over this
self-made and self-accepted hurdle ?  No wonder that HPB's task
was Herculean:  "to change the Manas and the Buddhi of the Race."

In this matter of the SECRET DOCTRINE (or any other Theosophical
Texts ) why not give the modern reader a true version of the
original UNCHANGED?  To this the various commentaries and
suggested changes can be attached, so that if he/she desires,
they may verify the value of the original vs. the correction.
And while this not obviate all the fuss, charges and
counter-charges as to accuracy, etc... it will at least give the
safety of accuracy to that original.  We have NOT BEEN ASKED TO
IMPROVE ON HPB.  We have been asked to PASS ON THE INFORMATION
THAT SHE AND THE MASTERS BROUGHT to our race and civilization at
this time and cycle.  That is, honestly, my own opinion in the
matter.

There is currently a push going on to modernize Theosophy and
perhaps rewrite it in the current language genre - as though any
text-book is easy to read !  But I find that the 19th Century
prose, while perhaps over descriptive and seemingly wandering,
can be read with a little effort (and a good dictionary) and one
can still extract sound meaning from what is written.

What kind of meaning do we want ?  Is it solely literalism ?  A
superficial grasp of the succession of words, or, is it an
understanding of the flow of ideas ?

Each student will interpret the book and what is said in the
light of his own understanding and learning, and will use it in
whatever way he chooses.  All pupils do that anyway, and there
cannot be an ultimate and rigid standard of interpretation, ever.

The attempt of every creed, sect, religion or political party,
has been to make rigid the orthodoxy that some one individual
assumes (for what every motives of his /her own ) to be valuable
and accurate.  Of what real value is that ?

Enough said. - I hope that those who read this will get the drift
of what I am after:  the FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL to express
that innate freedom which is every Soul's hallmark.  These many
conjoined freedoms make for the ultimate and final BROTHERHOOD OF
HUMANITY, and of the Universe.

I was reading the S D last night and came again across the
marvelous explanation that HPB gives of the reason for human
existence.  It is on SD II pp 102-3, and the "spiritual inner
Fire" in each one of us is described in S D II 113.

In SD  I 192 - 3 HPB again makes it plain how all the powers and
forces of Nature are focused in Man's consciousness, and the
whole universe is open to him who wills to learn.

In SD I pp. 289 to 300 will be found extracts from a private
COMMENTARY that reinforce all that has been said about the
evolution of the human Monad in the earlier part of the 1st
Volume.

I know this will produce a certain amount of response, and
perhaps not in the direction expected.  But, to me the realm of
IDEAS and their correlation is the obvious adjunct to much
reading.  Everything in this marvelous jig-saw has to be put
together.  In so doing we learn.  And I think that is one of the
reasons why, apparently, the S D seems so haphazardly (to some)
written and printed.


Best wishes, as always,

Dallas

> From: Graye/Caldwell
> Sent:	Saturday, September 12, 1998 10:19 PM
> Subject: Dallas: Attention: Re: 3rd volume of the Secret Doctrine == HOW HAS IT BEEN ALTERED BEFORE PUBLISHING ?

Dallas,

Are you interested in doing the experiment I outlined below in
order to
ascertain how much editing was done to HPB's writings in the 3rd
volume
of the SD (published 1897)?

Daniel


Graye/Caldwell wrote:
>
> I first quote below part of what Dallas wrote and then follow
that with
> my own detailed comments.
>
> Daniel
>
> W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote in part:
>
> > Dear Daniel:
> >
> >                 Re:  3RD  VOLUME of the SECRET DOCTRINE
> >
> > I have carefully read your article when you originally
published
> > it and sent it to me.
> >
> > The one aspect that is unclear and, to me, important is:
> >
> > How much did Mrs. Besant (whom Mr. Mead says was solely
> > responsible for its editing) change and edit it from what HPB
> > wrote ?
> >
> > Yes, it is based on those unedited and unprinted MSS that HPB
had
> > in her possession.  But if those have been changed and
altered as
> > the "Third and Revised EDITION of 1893" was, how can we
depend
> > absolutely on them ?
> >
> > This 3rd and Revised EDITION (not Volume) is shown to contain
> > about 40,000 alterations from the original 1888 edition (the
> > original) as published.  A number of student are of the
opinion
> > that the "ORIGINAL EDITION OF 1888" contains certain codes,
and
> > some of those are dependent on the phrasing and the
> > capitalization and the actual words that HPB and the Masters
used
> > in that book.
> >
> > If that concept is thrown aside, then the "3rd VOLUME can be
> > considered as possibly authentic in INTENT, but not as to
> > CONTENT.  In other words it may not be consistent with the
> > ORIGINAL MSS that HPB had left.
>
> ..................
>
> > The content and statements made in some of the articles
published
> > by Mrs. Besant as part of the "THIRD VOLUME OF THE S D " do
not
> > closely dovetail (in my esteem) with statements made and
> > orthography used in the ORIGINAL 1888 S D, and in several of
her
> > articles published after that date.  It is therefore
difficult
> > for me to agree to use those as a basis for presenting
original
> > Theosophy and its doctrines.
> >
> > In other words they show a peculiar lack of cohesiveness and
> > continuity with those statements and teachings she made in
those
> > writings she actually EDITED HERSELF.  Now it may be argued
that
> > these are minor and perhaps they are also insignificant.
However
> > they do represent a DIFFERENCE.  So in my eyes I have set
them
> > aside as having been tampered with.
> ...............................
>
> > If HPB had edited and published that 3rd Volume, then, OK.
> > However the contents of that 3rd VOLUME, as I say above show
an
> > incohateness that I find troubling.  And I can only speak for
> > myself and my studies.
>
>
> Dallas,
>
> Thanks for your comments.  But can we try to TEST some of your
> statements in order to clarify and actually determine how much
editing
> was done to HPB's text in SD Volume III?  Can we devise a test
to either
> verify or falsify these statements made?
>
> Let's do an experiment.
>
> Go to Volume III of the SD:
>
> Read Section XXIII (23) titled:  "What the Occultists and
Kabalists Have
> to Say."
>
> And  Read Section XVII (17) titled:  "Apollonius of Tyana".
>
> Now in your statements quoted above, you say among many things:
>
> > If HPB had edited and published that 3rd Volume, then, OK.
> > However the contents of that 3rd VOLUME, as I say above show
an
> > incohateness that I find troubling.  And I can only speak for
> > myself and my studies.
>
> Okay, after having read the above 2 sections from Vol. III, do
you find
> "an incohateness" in these two sections?    If you find such,
please
> state an example or two illustrating what you find TROUBLESOME
in these
> 2 sections.
>
> Now let us do the second part of the experiment.
>
> On Dec. 10, 1886, Colonel Olcott (in India) received a package
from HPB.
> This package contained the MSS copy of Volume I of the SD (part
of what
> is now called the Wurzburg MSS).
>
> 18 days later [on Dec. 28, 1886], Colonel Olcott comments
publicly on
> this MSS:
>
> ". . . the entire MSS. of the first . . . [volume] . . .that
Madame
> Blavatsky is now writing upon the Secret Doctrine, is in my
hands. . .
> ."
>
> This MSS in Colonel Olcott's hands contains the above two
articles which
> you have hopefully read:
>
> (1)  What the Occutlists and Kabalists have to say
>
> and
>
> (2)  in 2 parts:  "Who was the Adept of Tyana?" and "The Roman
Catholic
> Church Dreads the Publication of the Real Life of Apollonius."
>
> This 1886 Volume 1 became Volume 3 sometime in the summer of
1887,
> according to Bertram Keightley's testimony.  Bertram writes:
>
> "Finally we laid before her a plan, suggested by the character
of the
> matter itself, viz., to make the work consist of four
volumes....
> Further, instead of making the first volume to consist, as she
had
> intended, of the history of some great Occultists, we advised
her to
> follow the natural order of exposition, and begin with the
Evolution of
> Cosmos, to pass from that to the Evolution of Man, then to deal
with the
> historical part in a third volume treating of the lives of some
great
> Occultists; and finally, to speak of Practical Occultism in a
fourth
> volume should she ever be able to write it.
>
> This plan was laid before H.P.B., and it was duly sanctioned by
her."
>
> So Volume I became Volume III.  THIS REARRANGEMENT OF THE
VOLUMES IS THE
> KEY TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS CONTAINED IN VOLUME III (1897).
This key
> has been overlooked by almost all Blavatsky students during the
last 80
> years.
>
> And in April 1888, Madame Blavatsky herself tells the T.S.
American
> Convention:
>
> "The MSS. of the first three volumes is now ready for the
press." (CW 9:
> 247).
>
> The 2 above named sections became part the third volume MSS.
AND THEY
> THEN SHOW UP IN 1897 IN THE THIRD VOLUME OF THE SD.  For
details see my
> paper http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/sdiiimyt.htm
>
> Now back to the 1886 MSS.  The 1886 MSS version of these 2
sections
> under discussion were finally published for the public to read.
See:
>
> Theosophist, April, May and June, 1933
> Theosophist, October and November, 1933
>
> In COMPARING the Wurzburg 1886 version with the Volume III 1897
version,
> one will see that there are changes and some additions to the
1897 text,
> but the changes appear quite trivial and the meaning in both
versions
> appear similar if not identical.  And it is quite possible that
HPB made
> many of these changes as she was working on this third volume
MSS in the
> months *before her death*.
>
> It is this kind of testing (and research) that will show the
openminded
> student that Volume III (1897) contains the material intended
to be part
> of that volume by HP Blavatsky herself.  By doing ADDITIONAL
comparisons
> of the Wurzburg version with the 1897 version, the student can
determine
> the amount of editing that was probably done, etc. etc.
>
> I hope you see the purpose of the testing and what point(s) I'm
> attempting to convey.  If not, please let me know and I will
try to
> explain it better.
>
> Daniel Caldwell