Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00071)

Tony,

I think you have made an excellent point about the possible Astral nature of 
the palm leaves, and I retract my choice of words in giving them the 
appellation, "dry" (although, they might very well have been:-).  I also 
recognize the value of HPB's small work, the VOS, as being equivalent, in a 
certain sense, to Lao Tse's, Tao Te Ching -- as the essences of the 
*practices* of their respective "doctrines".  However, I still don't think 
the use of either the words "oblong square" or just plain "oblongs" would 
make any difference in the understanding of the any part of the Heart 
Doctrine, since the sentence the words were used in was simply introductory 
information as to where HPB found the original documentation, and not 
pertinent to an understanding of the esoteric meaning of the translated text 
itself.  

In any event, to end this discussion, I have conceded that "oblong square" is 
a definable shape in architectural terminology, which does go back to its 
usage in ancient descriptive literature on the subject.  It also has an 
esoteric meaning -- since it has the proportions defined by the primal (tai 
chi) triune spherical energy field, and can be constructed with a ruler and 
compass.  So perhaps, the use of the descriptive words, "oblong square," was 
not necessarily a mistake by HPB, and could just as well have been left uncut 
by Judge.  However, I do believe he changed it into modern English, not only 
because it was an obscure term that might not have any meaning to modern 
readers (not being listed in most dictionaries -- although referenced in 
encyclopedias), but also because the sentence itself, being simply a 
description of the source of the material, was not a part of the *text* of 
the Heart Doctrine itself... And, therefore, had no esoteric meaning.

In defense of Judge, I simply took a technical position on the separate 
descriptive meaning of the words "square" and "oblong" in modern English 
dictionaries, and pointed out the self contradiction that combining the two 
words together would infer to modern readers.  Therefore, I cannot fault him, 
as others have done, for making this change in a non esoteric part of the 
original manuscript... (And do believe that the Theosophy Company 
acknowledged that their reprint of the Voice of the Silence was "edited" by 
WQJ). 

LHM


In a message dated 05/04/00 8:55:55 AM, alpha@dircon.co.uk writes:

>LEON:
>
>
>
>"The Voice of the Silence" is dedicated "To the Few."
>
>
>
>But in a way, what is even more significant, is that it is "TRANSLATED
>AND
>
>ANNOTATED BY "H.P.B."", rather than by H.P.Blavatsky, or by H.P.B.  It
>is
>
>...by "H.P.B."
>
>
>
>And in H.P.B's own copy of "The Voice of the Silence", she inscribes it:
>
>
>
>"H.P.B. to H.P.Blavatsky
>
>with *no* kind regards."
>
>
>
>So to put forward the opinion that it is alright to make changes in "The
>
>Voice of the Silence", because of the nature of the work, but not in any
>of
>
>other of H.P.B's works, doesn't really add up?
>
>
>
>"H.P.B." points inwards.
>
>
>
>You mention dried palm leaves.
>
>
>
>On the first page of the PROEM it is:
>
>
>
>"AN Archaic Manuscript -- a collection of palm leaves made impermeable
>to
>
>water, fire, and air, by some specific unknown process -- is before the
>
>writer's eye." (rather than eyes).
>
>For example, HPB may be seeing the palm leaves in the akasa, they are
>
>impermeable to water, fire, and air. There is no sense of dry about these
>
>palm leaves.
>
>
>
>So why shouldn't "thin oblong squares" be seen in a similar kind of light,
>
>but making the suitable adjustments to this situation?  The whole point
>is
>
>that it is not "thin oblongs", that is just what it is not.
>
>
>
>Does H.P.B. sign any of her other works "H.P.B."?
>
>
>
>What does H.P.B. mean when she writes:
>
>
>
>"H.P.B. to H.P.Blavatsky
>
>with *no* kind regards."
>
>
>
>In the INTRODUCTORY to "The Secret Doctrine" H.P.B. writes:
>
>Lao-tse: "He is said to have written 930 books on Ethics and religions,
>and
>
>seventy on magic, one thousand in all. His great work, however, the heart
>of
>
>his doctrine, the "Tao-te-King," or the sacred scriptures of the Taosse,
>has
>
>in it, as Stanislas Julien shows, only "about 5,000 words" (Tao-te-King,
>p.
>
>xxvii.), hardly a dozen of pages, yet Professor Max Muller finds that "the
>
>text is unintelligible without commentaries...""
>
>
>
>This, with the text that follows in the SD (but is not quoted here) says
>
>many things, but the point here being stressed is that his great work,
>the
>
>heart of his doctrine was a very short work.
>
>
>
>Is'nt it also possible, in the case of "H.P.B.", that "The Voice of the
>
>Silence" is also "her" great work, which makes it all the more reason for
>
>not altering it (rather than making it the exception for altering as you
>
>do)?
>
>
>
>Tony

-- 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.