Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00015)

In a message dated 04/30/00 11:34:31 PM, blafoun@azstarnet.com writes: (in 
reply to Reed Carson)

(Snip)
>In at least two emails, Peter Merriott has questioned the need to make
>a change concerning the phrase "thin oblong squares".  He wrote in part:
>
>"HPB writes:
>  "The original PRECEPTS are engraved on thin oblong squares"
>  (Original edition, page vii, caps added where italics put in original)
>
>"Unfortunately, in my view, the wording of this has been altered in the ULT
>edition wherein the word "squares" has been removed thus rendering the
>passage:
>
>  "The original Precepts are engraved on thin oblongs.."  (ULT edition)
>
>"In the Collected Writings of HPB we find an article by her wherein we
>discover that she has used the term OBLONG SQUARES before.  So it is
>somewhat puzzling why this phrase should have been altered (presumably
>corrected?) in the ULT edition. . . . ."
>
>"The words OBLONG SQUARE are italicised in the above article which 
>suggests HPB wished to draw our attention to its special significance. . . . 
."
>
>". . . . Clearly then, this is no mistake, no idle phrase or term that HPB
>is using in the VOICE.  So again, one might ask why change it in the VOICE
>OF THE SILENCE, why remove the word "squares" to leave the phrase "thin
>oblongs"?  For to do so is to delete something very important in the text,
>or so it seems to me. . . ."
>
>". . . .Do we perhaps get a sense that this term OBLONG SQUARE is an
>important one, and should have remained untouched as HPB wrote it in her 
>original VOICE OF THE SILENCE? . . . "'

The word "oblong square" is a meaningless term, perhaps even an oxymoronic 
one, that Judge, as both an occultist who was greatly trusted by HPB, as well 
as an accomplished writer, editor and scholar, recognized as a mathematically 
(as well as a scientifically) incredible term...  Since the word "oblong" 
means that the length of a rectangle is greater than its width... And, a 
"square" is defined solely as a rectangle having equal sides.  Therefore, a 
square cannot be an oblong, nor an oblong, a square -- and there can be no 
such thing as an "oblong square."  So, Judge was perfectly justified in 
editing out the offending words and substituting what was really meant. I 
also cannot see how any such materially descriptive word, correct or 
incorrect, has any reference to theosophy, its truths, or its recommended 
yoga practices, esoteric or not. If this is an example of the "serious and 
misleading" editorial changes that Judge made of HPB's work, what's all this 
hubbub about?  

Judging from the brouhaha about the changes in the VOS, we might just as well 
say that Judge's rewriting, or should we say, transliterating into "readable" 
English, in his Ocean of Theosophy, of HPB's teachings in the SD, lost much 
of the esoteric meaning.  Or, that his transliteration of Patanjali's Yoga 
Aphorisms also distorted its esoteric meaning.  That would be poppycock and 
another example of the sort of nit picking going on in these forums that does 
nothing but add to the confusion of theosophical students and gives grist for 
the mill to the detractors of theosophy.... (Not to mention the waste of time 
in opening raading and trashing slews of self serving, criticising, 
gossiping, thanking, and hand washing letters that have no relevance to the 
the study or discussion of theosophy, and its meanings and relationship to 
each and all of our lives in conjunction with the "lives" of both the Earth 
and the Universe.)  Such linguistic and technical mistakes by HPB, along with 
KH and M, I presume (who dictated much of the SD) -- to whom English was a 
"foreign" language. (And there were a number of such understandable "errors" 
in both spelling and syntax in HPB's so called, "carefully edited" writings, 
as well as her use of italics, that had no other meaning than HPB's 
propensity to emphasize words, or notate references to them, by underlining.) 
 Therefore, all this has absolutely no reference to the validity or 
understanding (by the "intuitive student") of the teachings, themselves... 
And certainly not worth the misleading commentaries and ranting about it.  
Having examined both editions of the VOS, as well as well as almost every 
English version of Patanjali, and having tested the commentaries in the SD 
against the inherent logic and scientific validity of the "formulas" in the 
Book of Dzyan, I find no contradictions or loss of esoteric meaning in any of 
the writings of both WQJ and HPB -- no matter what purely editorial (not 
interpretive) changes were made by their respected, if not chosen, editors. 
(I cannot, however, speak for those later editors in the TS that took it on 
themselves to not only edit, but to "reinterpret" the Secret Doctrine 
teachings.)

I hope we can all get back to discussing the "theosophy" -- originally 
re-presented in English by HPB, as a "synthesis of science, religion and 
philosophy" -- from whatever source it may come, and not be so involved in 
giving credence to and arguing with those who think the teachings have 
anything to do with the personalities, personal opinions, or individual foible
s of the teachers.  What practices we each engage in for our own self 
realization, as well as how we carry out our personal lives, have no 
relevance to the study, teaching, or application of theosophy -- which should 
be the major point of discussion in these forums.  I'm certain HPB would 
agree fully with this -- since she already warned us against getting side 
tracked by such "side issues" -- to the detriment of the Theosophical Movement

LHM

-- 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.