Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00075)

Dallas,

Thanks for your private reply to my last email to you.
But you did not address, for example, an important issue.
I repeat it again below hoping that you will deal with it in 
this public forum.

Daniel


Dallas you wrote about the VOICE:

> 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?"


  


-- 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.