Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00203)

>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:
>
Daniel, just to try once more.
You say "But the
>obvious meaning of the passage . . ."

Just because it is the obvious meaning to you, does it have to obviously
mean that to all of us.  Is it so bad or wrong to see it differently?  Does
it have to be answered with  "Of course, if you are DETERMINED to read some
>other meaning into the statement ..."  Something more constructive would be
helpful.  Why can't a number of views be put forward?

>"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.*

You have answered the quote that Nicholas made.  But have you really
addressed the quote that HPB made which included the extra words "emanating
from a desire
>> diametrically opposite"?

"Very likely errors ... will be found in "The Secret Doctrine".

is different to:

"Very likely errors, emanating from a desire
>> diametrically opposite, will be found in "The Secret Doctrine".

Could this mean that if we are reading "The Secret Doctrine" physically we
see it one way?  If we are studying and working and meditating we see
something different?
So (and even may be by analogy) reading the SD physically emanates from a
desire diametrically opposite to studying it for example.  We are not saying
one is good, the other bad (yes/no).   Is lower manas diametrically opposite
to higher manas?  It may not be a yes or no answer.  It may be both yes and
no, if yes can be seen as diametrically opposite to no.

On page 36 (vol. I) of the SD:
"In the Secret Doctrine the figure and number 4 are the male symbol only on
the highest plane of abstraction; on the plane of matter the 3 is the
masculine and the 4 the female...."

The figure and number 4 is male.   The figure and number 4 is female.

Can anyone shed any more light on this, as one student or reader to another?

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

The key words to this for this writer are: emanating from a desire
>> diametrically opposite
Boris de Z saw lots of mistakes and errors.  You see mistakes and errors.
Can't you just accept that this writer approaches it from another point of view:
SD, II, p.22: "The teaching is offered as it is understood; and as there are
seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory, that which may
not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will
be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical."

>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'."

Yes, "PERHAPS" isn't satisfactory, but if only Boris de Z had said PERHAPS:
"...in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable"" isn't an error,
it would have been a far more humble approach.  The whole tone of the first
fundamental proposition IS UNIVERSALS, not specifics.
What we can say has definitely happened, is when the word Mandukya is added,
then the number of words in the first fundamental proposition are no longer
49.  To some the number 49 is significant.
"Very likely errors, emanating from a desire
>> diametrically opposite, will be found in "The Secret Doctrine".

Does everything everybody writes, and the way they study and work and
meditate on the SD have to come in to YOUR way of looking at things?   Can't
you see more than just YOUR one way?  Demand a yes or no answer of whether
HPB made errors or not.  Who are you for goodness sake?   You have made your
quotes.  You have decided to take that course.  Diametrically opposite to
that which others who love HPB are taking.
It is hopeless to start studying the SD, etc. as was suggested by Martin, if
everything has to be proved to YOUR standards.  YOUR SPECIFICS!  Why can't
there be others?
You have made YOUR approach to Theosophy, HPB, the Masters, vol. III of the
SD clear, and that is quite fair enough.  It is a view to be considered.
But it is not the only one.
>
>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.

It was hoped by making a start and some questioning suggestions to the first
fundamental proposition, that some positive and helpful suggestions would be
added, in undemanding ways.  If you don't have anything to add but continual
criticism, can't you just leave it alone.
>
>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
(PERHAPS)
 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.

In other words, the typist or
>typesetter left out the second period.  And this mistake was not caught
>at the proofreading stage.

This is your view Daniel. Fine.

Another view is that there is more to it than that.  There are more things
to take into consideration such as karma, the akasha . . .
This may mean something to someone on this list, and it may not, but can't
those thoughts be offered, without having to bring in specific proofs.
>
>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?

To this last helpful paragraph this writer would add and offer other avenues
of thought, other approaches, such as did HPB see the Upanishads in the
Akasha.  Would consider "before the writer's eye." on page 1 of the PROEM.
In an article of HPBs she spells Akasha in 2, 3 or 4 different ways.
Would be interested in thinking in why HPB puts it Mandukya Upanishad,
Mandukya, and Mandukya (Mundaka), and would be considering what is written
about the Upanishads SD I, page 270, such as: "(b) that half of their
contents have been eliminated, while some of them were rewritten and
abridged...." Did HPB have access to the unaltered Upanishads through her
inner eye, and/or through the Mahatmas?
And hopefully others may be able to offer some more in a study of co-operation.
>
>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.

Important to YOU may be.
>
Tony.