Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00053)

Dallas,

Actually I'm glad you broke into the discussion.

I always enjoy reading your posts.  But several of your
statements below I find quite puzzling and even surprising.

Let me quote some of your statements and make some comments
on them.

Dallas you wrote:

> [ As usual the scholars are all excited -- but how about the
> TEACHINGS?  What no comments ?  All this without any disquisition
> on the value of the TEXT ?  Why not give at least equal time to
> that ? ]
"

Dallas, I guess that when you speak of "scholars" you are
referring to Peter and Tony and me.  If not, please tell us who
you are referring to?  Also do I detect a negative
connotation when you use the word "scholars"?  I thought
Tony, Peter and I were all sincere serious dedicated students
of HPB's teachings.  Are you suggesting that we are not?
Are you implying that we are JUST intellectuals and JUST scholars?
I hope not.

"As usual....all excited."  What are you implying here?

Certainly we can talk about the value of the text.  But it is
more productive to talk about one point at a time.  If you want
to bring up the value of the text, that's fine.  Do so.  But what
is wrong discussing the present subject matter?


Dallas you wrote:

> as long ago
> (around 1942) I had compared (proof-read) the T. Co. publication
> with the 1st Edition of 1889 and found it accurate and
> trustworthy enough, so it could be used by a student (in spite of
> Stokes correct observations as to changes from the 1st Edition of
> 1889, of which I was also aware since many years . . . .


Dallas, I like your phrase "accurate and trustworthy ENOUGH."
Caps added.

But what puzzles me about your remarks here is that you have
on four public theosophical internet discussion groups
repeatedly  recommended to students (including new students
and inquirers) that they should study HPB's writings in
either photographic facsimile or in verbatim reprintings.

Therefore I ask you how can you recommend to new students
and inquirers an edition of the VOICE that you know is not
verbatim with the original?  What is your definition of the
word verbatim?

In previous discussions with you about the changes made
by Boris de Zirkoff in his Collected Writings version of HPB's writings,
you always said you found unacceptable ANY changes that Mr.
de Zirkoff had made.  I'm referring to changes such as a more
up to date spelling of a Sanskrit word or even "correcting" a
Sanskrit word or correcting the spelling of an English word, or
changing capital letters to small or vice versa, etc.

You have been firmly against all such changes made by
Boris de Zirkoff.  You told me that such an edition of HPB's works
was NOT verbatim with her original, therefore was  unacceptable to
you.  You also told me during my trip to California that the ULT
did not sell Boris de Zirkoff's COLLECTED WRITINGS because
ULT did not approve of such changes as made by him.  You
emaphasized in our discussions that the ULT and you personally
promoted only verbatim editions of HPB's writings.

Therefore in light of these discussions with you, I am quite
amazed that you would consider the TC's version of the
VOICE "accurate and trustworthy enough."  Yet this edition
deletes words of HPBs, adds words, corrects various things
in the book and even corrects her Sanskrit spelling.

How can such a text with these changes be in any sense "verbatim"
with the original?  Maybe you will say the meaning is verbatim, but
Dallas in your previous discussions with me about the de Zirkoff
edition you never brought up this NEW meaning of the word
"verbatim."

Are you telling me that you would accept de Zirkoff's changes if
the changes he made do not affect the meaning of HPB's text?

You never made this distinction in our first discussions on
this subject.


Dallas you wrote:

> For instance in the 1st Edition the word UPADYA does not exists
> in either Sanskrit or Bengali.  The correct word is UPADHYAYA,
> (as corrected in the 2nd 1893, London Edition).  Anyone who has
> been in Bengal for a while knows that the term means "Spiritual
> Teacher", and some Brahmin families use it as a surname.

So here Dallas you are saying that it was okay in the 1893 & TC editions of
the VOICE to change or "correct" the spelling of this word since UPADYA
does not exist in either Sanskrit or Bengali.  You assert that the CORRECT
word is UPADHYAYA.

But this stance of yours is totally contradictory of what you have
said on various other occasions.

Several years ago David Reigle wrote an article in which he suggested
that the word "Narjol" in the "Voice of the Silence" was incorrect and that
the correct word was "naljor".

You wrote David a long letter taking him to task for suggesting this
"correction" as well as other corrections.

You also sent him an article/compilation of yours titled VOICE OF THE
SILENCE
You also sent me a copy of this 16 page article of yours.

In that article on correcting "Narjol" to "naljor", you wrote:

"Please follow HPB.  There is no basis to say she is wrong."

This morning over the phone I read to David Reigle your statement above
about UPADYA.

He said your statement on UPADYA and your reasoning was similar
if not identical to his own statement on NARJOL.

I therefore paraphrase what your Upadya statement said but
substitute Narjol, etc.  Here is the paraphrase:

> For instance in the 1st Edition the word NARJOL does not exist
> in Tibetan.  The correct word is NALJOR,
> Anyone who has been in Tibet for a while knows what the term means.

In that same article, Dallas, concerning another contested term, you wrote:

"The reports of those who have been in contact *exoterically* with the
Tibetan religions (?) make this confusion.  Are they to be trusted over
HPB and the ADEPTS?"

But could we not use your same reasoning and words AGAINST your
preference for UPADHYAYA?

"The reports of those who have been in contact *exoterically* with the
Hindu religions (especially in Bengal) make this confusion.  Are they to be
trusted over HPB and the ADEPTS?"

Concerning *your adoption and acceptance* of both UPADHYAYA, etc.  and
the Theosophy Company's edition of the VOICE with hundreds of
unacknowledged changes, let me CONTRAST all that with what you
yourself wrote in your 1995 article .  It is hard to believe that you
could be the same writer.  It literally takes my breath away!

Dallas you wrote in that VOICE OF THE SILENCE article:

"Those who have made themselves responsible for the task
of reprinting original Theosophical texts, based on the principles
found in the *ULT Declaration*, make no UNMARKED CHANGES
in the material they reprint.  All changes thought necessary to
restore accuracy, ought to be marked and explained in footnotes. . . ."

"Consider that WE are not competent, nor are any modern
Orientalists or scholars competent, to arraign either HPB, or the
Mahatmas, at the bar of modern academic erudition."

"*. . . . We may assume that the Masters who taught and helped HPB
in Her mission for Them, were those who originally composed
and phrased these verses*.  Are they to be confronted by modern
scholars with their limited ignorance, as being incompetent in their
usuage now?"

". . . Please follow HPB.  There is no basis to say she is wrong. . . ."

"We would consider this as an UNFAIR advantage taken of HPB
who is not able to actively, today, agree or disagree with US, or
even to explain why she adopted THOSE PARTICULAR WORDS.
WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES."

"If it is felt desirable to point to recent findings, then it is equally
right, OUT OF RESPECT for HPB and the Adepts to place
such observations in EDITORIAL FOOT-NOTES for the
benefit of captious critics.  No changes can LEGITIMATELY
be introduced INTO HPB'S TEXT. . . ."  Caps added.


Dallas you also wrote:

>  I always
> blessed whoever thought of bringing the end-notes under the text
> so that they were transformed into easily referable foot-notes --
> now I find it was Mr. Judge in the 1893 first New York printing
> of the VOICE).

Dallas, how do you know that Mr. Judge was responsible for the
changes in this 1893 edition?

A longtime Judge student who has been following these discussions
wrote me yesterday and questioned the assumption made that Mr.
Judge was responsible for the changes in either the 1893 first New
York printing of the VOICE or the changes in the 1928 TC edition of
the VOICE.

This student points out that even the Theosophy Company in their
1928 letter to Dr. Stokes EMPHASIZED the following:

". . . . As a matter of fact you [Stokes] should know for yourself that he
[Judge]
no more read the proofs and corrected the typography of the various
books brought out by the Path Publishing Company than H.P.B.
assumed responsibility for the typographical work on the publications
of the Theosophical Publishing Society of London during her lifetime.
Moreover Mr. Judge from 1893 on was not only overwhelmed
with Theosophical working requirements but was under the heavy
burden of unceasing attacks upon him and was in steadily declining health.
The responsibility to bring out the Path Publishing Company's publications
was not his [Judge's] but that of subordinates who had direct
charge of it. . . . "

So using the Theosophy Company's OWN argument, this Judge student
questions whether this 1893 edition you mention was done with Judge's
approval.

It is true that in this same letter from the Theosophy Company  the
anonymous writer told Dr. Stokes that:

"This new edition [of the VOICE published 1928 by TC] . . .
is set up *verbatim et literatim* from a copy of the original
[1889] edition of *The Voice of the Silence* as CORRECTED
by Mr. Judge IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING.  This copy
we have in our possession."  Caps added.

My correspondent questions whether these changes in Mr.
Judge's handwriting are actually "corrections" by Mr. Judge.

Using the Theosophy Company's own above argument about Mr.
Judge not being responsible for what was published, this student
suggests whether possibly some subordinate without Mr. Judge's
authorization made the changes and at some later point, Mr. Judge
discovered what had been done.  Possibly he compared the changes
between the two editions (1889 & 1893) and marked the
changes in the original.  These were not therefore Judge's corrections
but simply his recording of the changes that had been done by
some subordinate.

When did he actually mark up this copy?
Maybe he was planning to rectify the matter but because of
poor health, the attacks against him, etc. he was not able to do so.
And unfortunately he also died a premature death.

Could the Theosophy Company in 1928 have WRONGLY
ASSUMED that the copy in their possession reflected "corrections" made by
Mr. Judge when in fact the truth was the very opposite?

I have no opinion at this time on what is proposed by this Judge
student.  But certainly it is worth contemplating and pursuing.

Dallas, I assume that this copy with changes made by Mr.  Judge
is in the archives of ULT/TC.  Can you find it and see if Mr. Judge
indicated that these were ACTUALLY CORRECTIONS
he had made?

I thank the Judge student for his observations.

Dallas, I hope you will take it upon yourself to look in the
archives and see if you can find evidence to either verify or
falsify this student's suggestion.

Fraternally,

Daniel



----- Original Message -----
From: W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net>
To: <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:45 AM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Response to Leon followed by Peter's original
posting on "Thin Oblong Squares".


> May 4th
>
> Re: VOICE OF THE SILENCE
>
> Dear Peter and Leon:
>
>
> Pardon my breaking in on this exchange, will you ?
>
> RE:  "Thin Oblong Squares" (or "Discs" or "OBLONGS")  -- on which
> THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE  texts were originally seen and from
> which copied by HPB. (Introduction).
>
>
> [ As usual the scholars are all excited -- but how about the
> TEACHINGS?  What no comments ?  All this without any disquisition
> on the value of the TEXT ?  Why not give at least equal time to
> that ? ]
>
> That (the changes) is something I could not easily explain
> without Tony's good work.
>
> I mean the several changes, now that my attention is drawn to
> them.  I admit that with me, this meant very little, as long ago
> (around 1942) I had compared (proof-read) the T. Co. publication
> with the 1st Edition of 1889 and found it accurate and
> trustworthy enough, so it could be used by a student (in spite of
> Stokes correct observations as to changes from the 1st Edition of
> 1889, of which I was also aware since many years -- I always
> blessed whoever thought of bringing the end-notes under the text
> so that they were transformed into easily referable foot-notes --
> now I find it was Mr. Judge in the 1893 first New York printing
> of the VOICE).
>
> I was, and have always been, focussed on what was SAID, on what
> HPB TAUGHT US.  And not how it was physically recorded.  Once
> that I assured myself that I could use the modern printing
> without worry, I paid no more attention to that side of things.
> Look at the amount of time we have recently spent back and forth
> on the matter.  As far as I can see it is a waste.  But perhaps
> that is my exasperation speaking.  As Karma would have it this
> "loose end" is now caught and fastened.
>
> ARE WE ANY WISER ?
>
> Have we actually deepened our Heart and Mind perception -- or is
> all this -- froth and fuss -- on the mere surface of things?  I
> fancy that a 100 or a 1000 years from now no one will care as to
> HOW the Text was recorded so long as IT WAS RECORDED -- and that
> it can be used by a STUDENT FOR HIS SPIRITUAL BENEFIT.
>
> In passing may I observe that when I was living in India, Ceylon,
> Burma, etc... (35 years) one could occasionally find old "ollas"
> or "palm-leaf books, sized in appearance as "squares" or
> "oblongs,"   inscribed with a stylus in the physical matter of
> the still green and soft (now dried) palm leaves.  They were
> squares and ovals and sometimes long parts (10 or 15 inches long
> and about 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inches wide) of actual (now) dried palm
> leaves -- and generally they were all threaded together by 1 or 2
> strings,  so the continuity was maintained as the student read
> them and then reassembled them for storage -- usually between a
> pair of carved or painted "Book-ends" of wood.
>
> I have also seen ancient paper "squares" or "oblongs" and even
> "discs" -- all lacquered, and threaded together to keep them
> assembled in the right order -- and these were generally stored
> in a small painted or carved wooden box (when not between
> book-ends)  -- and such records might contain copies of original
> texts or commentaries on them, or other matters.
>
> So I admit I paid no special attention to the description of the
> physical side of the record -- I always wanted to understand what
> was written, and why.
>
> Similarly for the changes in the way the information was
> re-presented to us, students:  was the text essentially correct?
> For instance in the 1st Edition the word UPADYA does not exists
> in either Sanskrit or Bengali.  The correct word is UPADHYAYA,
> (as corrected in the 2nd 1893, London Edition).  Anyone who has
> been in Bengal for a while knows that the term means "Spiritual
> Teacher", and some Brahmin families use it as a surname.
>
> So I admit I am not a purist in the mere physical aspect of
> things.  However, to broadly and pointedly smear the publication
> is also not correct and is in fact an exaggeration.  All facts
> ought to be admitted so that an "even field" of fairness and true
> accuracy is established.  The first allegations have been
> modified by late findings as several students cooperated in
> ferreting out the facts.  So it is incorrect as well as
> ungenerous to maintain them without acknowledging that subsequent
> work does, in fact, adjust matters.  Those are my opinions,
> personally.
>
> I suppose that this that I write, will be used and attacked also.
> Enough time has been wasted, I think.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
>
> D T B



-- 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.