[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Theos-World WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? by Boris de Zirkoff

May 12, 2001 12:19 PM
by Eldon B Tucker


I thought of the comparison that might be made regarding the
Boris de Zirkoff edition of the SD when I was writing my
previous note.

I've been going to the Malibu ULT study class in THE SECRET
DOCTRINE for several years. We've gone through Volume I, and
are into the second volume. I've used Boris's edition, and
at the same time hear others reading from the same book from
the original edition.

My personal preference is for the Boris edition. It is more
correct in a scholarly sense. Quotations have been checked
against original sources and corrected when in error. Full
citations are given, where they may have been incomplete
before. (It's interesting to hear others reading quotes from
the original SD, where the quotes sometimes differ.) I also
find extremely helpful where lengthy quotations are set apart
typographically, so that it's always clear what HPB is saying.
I've seen people confused at times, thinking that Blavatsky
was saying something, where it really was just her quoting
someone, perhaps a person she did not even agree with.

From what I've heard of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, the situation
is different. We don't have a book that has inaccuracies that
can be corrected with proper scholarship. Rather, we have a
book that was not written by Blavatsky, consisting mostly of
inaccurate definitions from many other books of her time, that
is presented, unfortunately, as what she had said.

-- Eldon
At 07:55 PM 5/12/01 +0100, you wrote:

<<<Our primary interest, as I see it, is in what HPB *really*
taught, on what *really* happened, on the way the world
*really* is. Whatever we may have learned is imperfect,
and should be subject to improvement whenever possible.>>>

Once we do the kind of thing you are suggesting in your mail, surely the
Boris de Zirkoff S.D. (quite different to that of H.P.B. and the Masters)
comes into question too, because of the changes made there? The fact that
there are pictures of the moon landing, etc. in the work, surely points to
the way it has been interpreted by those editors, and thus the kind of
alterations to the text they make? You use the word "really," isn't it to
the inner globes HPB and the Masters were referring, rather than to the
outer planets . . . and so on.

Because of all those alterations made to the de Zirkoff S.D., one then has
to ask is Boris de Zirkoff definitely correct in all he writes about the
Glossary? Is he? Even though the Glossary is a posthumous work + all
that goes with that, it really is difficult to think in terms of it being
discontinued (even though it can, is, or may be misleading.) Some students
of Theosophy have found it helpful. Discontinue the de Zirkoff S.D., well
certainly before the Glossary.

But then some (or rather more than some) of the articles in "The Collected
Writings" are altered too, and so it goes on.

Daniel made a brilliant suggestion some time ago to the effect that if all
of us on the lists copied out a few articles each from the originals, we
would soon have a true rendering of her complete works for those interested
to download off the internet.

One is ever grateful to Pasadena for putting so much of the source works on
the Internet, and that what they put is from the original and best editions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker []
Sent: 12 May 2001 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Theos-World WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? by Boris de


This article you posted regarding the source of the material
in the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY offers an interesting test of
theosophical groups.

Given that the book has been shown to primarily consist of
definitions from other authors, many definitions containing
errors, it would seem that the book should be discontinued.

It provides a good test for exercising flexibility of mind.
When new information is provided that causes us to reevaluate
our view of things, do we accept it and change? Or do we
keep blinders on and shy away from having to think things
through anew? It should not matter if many of us have been
brought up to think differently of the book, nor matter if
our books on theosophical history that we've come to rely
on are inaccurate on the matter.

The Adyar Theosophical Society was faced with a similar
problem, and did the right thing. That organization had
been publishing an altered version of THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
a six-volume edition containing massive editorial changes
and additional unrelated materials. (The unrelated materials
later appeared in Volume XIV of HPB's Collected Writings.)
When the case was made that this edition of the book poorly
represented what Blavatsky had written, the Adyar T.S.
discontinued its publication.

I wonder if the various theosophical groups that publish
the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, when faced with the same test,
will do the right thing?

Our primary interest, as I see it, is in what HPB *really*
taught, on what *really* happened, on the way the world
*really* is. Whatever we may have learned is imperfect,
and should be subject to improvement whenever possible.

When we stop taking new input from the world, and go into
a closed system of thought, we've just about given up on
life. That's the state we find ourselves in after we've
cast our physical frame aside, as we enter our devachanic
dream world, working out the threads of consciousness that
we've entangled our minds and hearts in during the former
lifetime. Until then, we are always learning, always
growing, always changing, embracing life with openness
and freshness. If only our theosophical groups could
do the same!

-- Eldon

At 10:07 AM 5/11/01 -0700, you wrote:

>GLOSSARY." by Boris de Zirkoff ...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application