Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00043)

Daniel,

I really admire your ability to presume, from the flimsiest of evidence, the 
motives and beliefs of others who disagree with you in one specific case.  My 
previous discussion of changes in the writings of HPB referred specifically 
to the VOS -- and particularly to legitimate editorial corrections that have 
no relationship to the esoteric or exoteric meaning of the teachings 
themselves.  To stretch that commentary as well as my comments related to 
some of the errors I found in the original SD, to my acceptance, or not, of 
other editorial or contextual changes in any writings of HPB, is the height 
of sophistic argumentativeness, and not worthy of response.  

However, I can't help being amazed that the examples used to indicate the 
'horrendousness' of such (minor) editorial corrections in the VOS (made 
solely by WQJ, according to the publishers) relating to technical English 
words that were meaningless in their original context. e.g., The correction 
of the sentence, (referring to writings on) "thin (flat) oblong square 
rectangles".  It's beyond me how anyone who really understands our language 
would claim those words made any sense technically, or had any relationship 
to esoteric meaning.  What could such a self contradictory thing as an 
"oblong square" be?  Unless HPB meant to say, or was thinking of, 'thin 
oblongs with SQUARE CORNERS.'  But, then, "rectangle" does mean square 
cornered, doesn't it? So, she simply may have made an error in transcription 
that could be easily overlooked on rereading or reediting -- even by one 
familiar with correct English usage -- let alone a foreigner, like HPB, or 
the Masters, whose native languageenglish words; A rectangle can be oblong or 
square, but it cannot be both. (Except, perhaps, in the Astral world... But 
in the context of the entire sentence, HPB spoke of a physical object [dried 
palm leaves] that were written on, didn't she? :-)  As I see it, WQJ, was 
perfectly justified in correcting this as well as other similar errors in the 
VOS. (But, then, the VOS, as a yoga practice, is not the same as the SD, as a 
metaphysical textbook, and I would question anyone's editorial changes of the 
SD's far more esoteric teachings.)

In any event, What I said in my commentary on the corrections in the VOICE 
has no relationship to the idea that, since we cannot trust any editor that 
HPB didn't trust implicitly herself, the only writings that anyone can be 
sure of as being, at least, acceptable to HPB with regard to their esoteric 
meaning (even in spite of her own occasional minor errors of syntax, 
spelling, or punctuation) would be the original, edition as published during 
her lifetime, or its later facsimiles.  Therefore I do subscribe to the ULT 
idea that any other revisions are not to be trusted as to their esoteric 
validity... Although I am not a fanatic over this, as some others may be -- 
since I have found some of the editorial changes and modifications in the 
later edited reprints of the SD contained the same corrections I made in my 
own original editions (long before I read these revised versions or even knew 
they existed).  

Since these arguments seem to be related to inter and intra-organizational 
differences, I would like to go on record as saying that I am not, and never 
have been, a member of ANY theosophical, political, philosophical, scientific 
or religious organization.  I am an independent student of ALL the Masters, 
and accept HPB as one of their legitimate "messengers" in this last cycle of 
the Theosophical Movement.  As it was, I studied her (and WQJ's) original 
writings long before I read other, later teacher's works... Solely as 
references and confirmations of what I had garnered from the SD, Isis, VOS, 
HPB articles, etc., and with relation to my previous study of Western ccience 
and philosophy, along with Taoist, Hindu, Buddhist, Egyptian, Hebrew, etc., 
esoteric teachings, and other ancient mystical writings on occultism, alchemy 
and magic.  During this study, as well as correlation, of the post HPB 
teachers, covering the works of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Steiner, Crowley, 
Besant, Perucker, Leadbeater, Bailey, etc., along with other Masonic and 
Rosicrucian works, as well as later versions of the SD, I found a number of 
errors, discrepancies, and false teachings, as well as many valuable new 
insights.  

While I would recommend HPB's (as well as WQJ's) original writings to all 
students entering the path for the first time, I would not presume to 
restrict anyone's reading of any other theosophical  works, since there are 
those of whom the SD will forever remain a deep mystery, as well as students 
who might find further clarifications by other commentators, editors, and 
writers (including myself.:-)  Ref: my scientific theory of ABC, which is 
based on the original SD and, particularly, the Book of Dzyan and its occult 
"formulas" -- quite well, if not obscurely (to the non-intuitive) interpreted 
and explained by HPB. 

I hope this clarifies my position on the matters you have brought up.

Leon Maurer 
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ 


In a message dated 05/03/00 3:09:28 AM, blafoun@azstarnet.com writes:

>Leon,
>
>Thanks for your most revealing comments below.
>
>From these comments of yours, I gather that you
>would have no problem using or recommending Boris de 
>Zirkoff's edition of  THE SECRET DOCTRINE or even G.R.S. 
>Mead's edition of the SD since many 
>believe they too strove to produce a more accurate edition 
>of HPB's great  work.
>
>I also assume that you would not agree with those ULT
>students who severely criticize Mr. de Zirkoff's edition of 
>HPB's COLLECTED WRITINGS for his editing of her articles.
>He tried to correct obvious mistakes, misspellings, etc.  Many
>examples from his editing parallel the examples below that 
>you've commented on.  You obviously see no problem with 
>such editing, right?
>
>Therefore, am I correct in assuming that you do not take the
>view of many ULT students that one should only read and study
>facsimiles or strictly verbatim copies of HPB's original works?
>
>Hoping that you will clarify your position on these specific matters.
>
>Fraternally,
>
>Daniel J. Caldwell
>


-- 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.