Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00286)

Tony wrote:


> There is a fundamental difference Daniel in the way of looking at things.
> HPBs so called "mistakes" seem to be of concern to you.  Another approach is
> to work on the basis that she didn't make mistakes, as such (it just can't
> be crystallizey to a yes and no answer.)  If somone or some entity can see
> from all the "angles" and have  7 x 7 x 7 + 7 vision, they would better able
> to judge.

I have no special concern in HPB's so called "mistakes".  But if I run across
things which appear to be "mistakes" I try to UNDERSTAND them, etc. Could it be
a typo?  Could it be an actual mistake?  Could it be something else as you and
Paul B.  might suggest?  Etc. etc.

As far as having the approach that "she didn't make mistakes", I guess that's
okay for the student concerned although even Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatmas
denied being infallible or being mistake-less.  Believe it or not, I hold HPB
and her Teachers in very high regard.  Possibly this is part of the reason Paul
Johnson has accused me of being a defender of Theosophical orthodoxy.  But I'm
not going to adopt what I consider is an extreme view that there are no
"mistakes" in HPB's  and the Mahatmas' writings. Why should I?  HPB and the
Mahatmas' own words do not support such a view.  If some Blavatsky students
insist on believing such things, fine.  People believe all sorts of things!!

Tony wrote:

> Are you absolutely certain that is the reason Daniel?  Or is it that you
> want somebody to say, yes there are, or no there aren't mistakes in HPBs
> writings, which is what some of us aren't about.  We just don't look at
> Theosophy in that way. Can't you accept that?
>

Hey, Tony, you can say whatever you want to say.  I was just asking for your
honest opinion.  If you don't have an opinion or don't want to share it, then
that's okay too.  I have no idea how you" look at Theosophy".  It would
certainly be informative if you could tell us more about *your approach*.  But
you probably don't really know how I look at Theosophy.  I'm open to many, many
approaches.  I am open to the approach of the academic and scholar.  But also am
open to the approach of the occultist or mystic, etc. etc.  I am interested in
the history as well as the philosophy of Theosophy and *everything else in
between*.  All approaches have their advantages and disadvantages and I try to
use ALL tools available in order to educate myself.

Tony wrote:

> Daniel
> Here is a question for you:
> Do you agree that the error rate of the Quest Centenary edition of "The
> Voice of the Silence" is 100% (error rate) - which it is?
> On the cover it describes it as a facsimile reprint, and yet on comparing it
> with the original it comes to notice that it is in a different
> font/type-face (even though it says it is a facsimile) - so how can it be a
> facsimile?  And yet your suggestion was that it was more accurate than the
> Theosophy Co edition.
> It all depends at where the view of it is from:
> from the facsimile point of view, it isn't a facsimile, and therefore has to
> be immediately disqualified;
> from a words point of view it is more accurate by what you say.
> So there isn't a YES or NO answer.  It all depends.....
> Can you accept this?

No, I would not consider the 1992 Quest edition of the VOICE as a true facsimile
or even a *verbatim* reproduction.  But when you compare that Quest edition with
the Theosophy Company edition, the Quest edition is much more accurate---*to a
very large degree.*  If you want an actual photofacsimile of the VOICE, purchase
the edition published by Kessinger.  This is the best edition IN PRINT if you're
looking for a facsimile of the original.  I wish the Theosophy Company would
reprint  a facsimile of the 1889 VOICE instead of promoting the one they are
now selling.  But of course The Theosophy Company probably could care less about
my opinion!   I was hoping Dallas, an ULT associate, would urge them to do so,
but I have no indication whatsoever that he is unhappy with the TC edition.

Daniel