Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00072)

Dear Dallas,

Thank you.  I was wondering when you were going to enter this fray, and tell 
it like it is... From the point of view of the meaning of the actual texts, 
and their value as a "teaching" -- rather than being concerned about the 
material description of "things" and "personalities." 

I got caught up in this brouhaha only because I tried to point out that the 
particular materially descriptive change that others were so adamant about 
condemning, had no relationship with anything pertinent to a study of the VOS 
text itself.  Coming from my position as a more or less "scientific" 
theosophist, I took a technical, rather than a philosophical position... And, 
consequently got drawn into a long and repetitive give and take.  I'm sorry 
it led to such a lengthy and heated discussion... But we did learn something 
from it didn't we?  Especially, since it has brought out your very 
interesting and insightful response.  

Hopefully, this will end this particular argumentation, and let us all get 
back to our more important work of discussing theosophy as it is, and trying 
to clarify its inner meanings and its practical applications -- and from my 
standpoint -- its scientific correlations.   

Best regards,

Leon


In a message dated 05/04/00 9:04:05 AM, dalval@nwc.net writes:

>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

-- 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.