Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tt00004)

Steve,

Thanks for all your detailed answers to the questions of several
BN contributors.  I truly appreciate the time and effort you
took to answer them.  In reference to your answers (BELOW) to my
questions on the "unedited" editions of HPB's ES Instructions,
I will tell you that both the Health Research edition and the
the Collected Writings edition of HPB's Instructions are "edited."

In comparison with the 1st 1889 memographed edition as well
as the 1st printed edition by Mr. Judge in 1890, these two
editions mentioned by you have deletions and numerous changes.
I plan to publish the missing parts in facsimile in the near future
on Blavatsky Archives Online
(http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm)

As regards your contention that Mr. Mead had a hand in editing
the 3rd volume of the SD (1897), where are your souces for this statement?
It is my understanding that Mead had nothing to do with the editing of
this volume (as he stated in his 1897 review in Lucifer).  Since I quote
from
memory, I will look in my files for the relevant documents.  I would
appreciate if
you would consult your sources.

Thanks.

Daniel

> Daniel: "In your post on mantras and AUM, you speak of
> "the unedited edition of HPB's 'Instructions.' " Which
> edition are you referring to?"
>
> HP Blavatsky, Secret Instructions to Probators of an
> Esoteric Occult School. Mokelumne Hill, California:
> Health Research, 1969.
>
> The company changed hands some years ago and was moved
> to another state.  I do not know if this document is
> still available or not.  The Instructions also appear
> in BCW, and are, I assume, unedited in that source as
> well, although I have not compared the texts word for
> word
......................................................................
>
> Daniel: "What edition of the Instructions did Mead
> "edit"? On what basis do you make the statement that
> he edited the Instructions and deleted material on the
> teachings? When did he do this?"
>
> Before he died, Judge made the statement that he had
> been authorized - so he believed - by the Masters to
> publish the Instructions.  Judge and Besant had by
> then split the TS into two independent organizations
> and ditto with the EST.  Besant and Mead then surmised
> that the Instructions were to be published and put the
> material for that reason into the "third volume" of
> the SD.  This is the edition that Mead edited.  I
> think this is what tipped people that the "third
> volume" had been "Mead-ed" and caused the controversy
> over its integrity.  The Instructions were in private
> hands, which the other materials published in the
> third volume were not.  For his statement that he
> deleted material, see:
>
> George Robert Stowe Mead (1863 1933), 'Some Facts
> About the Secret Doctrine', The Occult Review, May,
> 1927.
>
> This article was written some time after he left the
> TS and some of the statements made may not be pleasing
> to you


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.