Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00031)

Peter,

I'll take your word that all this discussion about the changes in the Voice 
is a sincere attempt to study theosophy.  But, I don't agree with your ideas 
about the obscure esoteric purpose for using those words ("oblong squares") 
that have no meaning in contextual English when referring to a thin piece of 
material used to write something on.  In that purely materially descriptive 
sentence, I can't see the connection with any "mysterious" theosophical 
teaching. The words "thin oblong square" is still a meaningless syntactical, 
technical and grammatical error.  However, if you wish to think that there's 
some sort of mysterious esoteric connection, and that HPB made such an 
obvious error (which she seemed to repeat several times, as reported by you) 
in order to send a message to her intuitive students about something entirely 
different from the subject of the sentence those words appear in -- you are 
surely entitled to do so.  However, if there is such a connection (which I 
cannot imagine, except as some sort of science fictional fantasy dream:-) I 
would certainly like to hear your logical or intuitive explanation of it.  In 
the meantime, I will continue believing that the differences in the various 
versions of the VOICE has in no way changed my understanding of the clear 
"Message" of theosophical truths and teachings, and the description of the 
"heart doctrine" path, as described in that book as a practical adjunct to 
the esoteric formulas and evolution of cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis 
outlined in the Book of Dzyan and fully described by the commentaries in the 
SD.  To me, and my analytical as well as holistically thinking dual mind, it 
all seems like a perfect marriage of dyana and gnana yoga's that complement 
each other, and which, in conjunction with the rajah yoga of Patanjali 
(transliterated by WQJ), complete all the necessary teachings for one to 
arrive at a "true realization of the Self" -- which, I assume, is the 
fundamental purpose of theosophical study.  Judge probably meant the 
combination of these books, when he said, in effect, that there is no need 
for any theosophist to study more than three books to arrive at full 
enlightenment.  Therefore, I couldn't care less about who made any 
corrections or revisions.  What is true is true, and the intuitive student, 
placing all of HPB's teachings in context, can easily discriminate between 
correct views and distorted views contributed by revisionist editors who may 
or may not be right in their assumptions.  That's the fun in theosophy... The 
weeding out of all the intentional and unintentional "blinds" placed in it by 
HPB and the Masters as well as their more or less ignorant (or intelligent) 
followers of unlike mind and varying degrees of intuition.:-)

This is my last word on this subject, and I hope we can get on to something 
more in line with direct understandings of the theosophical "mysteries," 
rather than arguing about literary changes and revisions, or the 
"personalities" of the teachers.

LHM 

In a message dated 05/02/00 7:54:36 PM, caduceus@dial.pipex.com writes:

>Dear Leon,
>
>
>
>With regards H.P.B's use of the term "oblong squares" in the original
>
>edition of "The Voice of the Silence" and its deletion in the Theosophy
>
>Company/ ULT edition, you wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
><snip>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>First of all, Leon, putting aside who may have the edited out this term,
>I
>
>disagree with you that the term "Thin Oblong Squares" is a meaningless
>term,
>
>and I believe HPB also disagrees with you, as I will show in my original
>
>posting on this subject that follows.  It may APPEAR a meaningless oxymoron
>
>to someone looking at it from a purely linear and physical plane point
>of
>
>view.  But, HPB uses the term purposefully as one containing OCCULT
>
>significance.  It has to do with matters of 'the HEART', and not of the
>
>'Mind'.
>
>
>
>It is all very well for you to say the Judge was an Occultist greatly
>
>trusted by HPB and so on, I agree with you.  Can you also accept that HPB
>
>was an Occultist, "an accomplished writer, editor and scholar", as well
>as
>
>being Judge's senior and Teacher in Occult matters and greatly trusted
>by
>
>the Masters.  Where does this kind of reasoning lead us?
>
>
>
>Importantly, if being an Occultist is the bases for knowing whether what
>is
>
>written is valid from an Occult point of view,  can you also accept that
>as
>
>an Occultist HPB might just have known what it was she intended when writing
>
>about the Golden Precepts, that:
>
>
>
>"The original PRECEPTS are engraved on thin oblong squares.."
>
>  (Original edition, page vii, caps added where italics put in original)
>
>
>
>It was at her Master's request that HPB wrote the Voice of the Silence.
>
>Writing to the members of the Esoteric Section, she stated:
>
>
>
>"Read 'the VOICE', I say.  It was written for, and dedicated to you, by
>
>MASTER'S SPECIAL ORDERS."
>
>
>
>(Collected Writings Vol XII, p505, caps added at end of sentence)
>
>
>
>I think that last phrase is worth reflecting upon by those who would like
>to
>
>justify the altering of HPB's words by making out that HPB quickly "dashed
>
>off" THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE and thereby  made careless mistakes. Can
>
>anyone who has studied HPB's life and work seriously suggest she would
>"dash
>
>off" such a work and leave careless mistakes when she was given the task
>by
>
>"MASTER'S SPECIAL ORDERS"?
>
>
>
>As a 'by the way', it is not clear to me that Judge did carry out all the
>
>alterations to THE VOICE.  For prior to Judge's 1893 edition, there was
>a
>
>London edition published in 1892, after HPB had died, and probably done
>by
>
>G.R. Mead.   This earlier edition contains all the alterations that Daniel
>
>mentioned in his recent post.  Perhaps Judge did not realise that changes
>
>had been made to it when it passed through his hands - who knows.  But
>I
>
>wonder, will you and ceertain others still be happy with the alterations
>
>made to THE VOICE if it turns out to be altered by Mead and possibly Besant
>
>rather than by Judge?
>
>
>
>For me the simpler and truer course is to stick with the original edition
>
>and study it as HPB wrote it.  While the Theosophy Company has yet to
>
>republish HPB's original edition of THE VOICE, it is with the afore
>
>mentioned thought in mind that I feel grateful to the Theosophy Company
>for
>
>its sterling work over many many years in publishing and spreading the
>
>original teachings of HPB around the world.
>
>
>
>My primary interest is NOT in *who* altered The Voice of the Silence after
>
>HPB died.  For me this is a complete distraction from the real issue. 
> My
>
>sole aim is to study and validate those teachings given out by the Masters
>
>and the Occult Brotherhodd through HPB, the latter being Their "direct
>
>agent", as claimed by Them.  I can only do that when I study what she
>
>ACTUALLY wrote and not by reading what other people BELIEVE SHE SHOULD
>HAVE
>
>SAID and thereby changed her words, after she died.
>
>
>
>Leon, you also stated:
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
><snip>
>
>> I hope we can all get back to discussing... "theosophy"
>
>
>
>The post in question, where I share my own view on this term "thing oblong
>
>squares", along with other matters, will follow in my next mail.  It was,
>
>and is, offered as a sincere attempt to show that HPB had very good
>
>THEOSOPHICAL and OCCULT reasons for using that term.  Whether or not you
>and
>
>others agree with what I present therein it is nontheless offered as an
>
>attempt to study Theosophy, which seems to be our joint desire.
>
>
>
>I request it be treated as such, no more and no less.
>
>
>
>
>
>...Peter
>
>

-- 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.