Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00207)

Tony,

Thanks for your most recent comments (below).  You bring up a number of
points which I believe have *wider implications*.  I will try to address
those wider implications in a day or so.

Daniel

alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> >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.