RE: Theos-World original versus Boris de Zirkoff editions of THE SECRET DOCTRINE
May 18, 2001 04:29 AM
Friday, May 18, 2001
Dear Peter and Eldon:
Might I butt in for a moment ?
While I appreciate what Eldon is trying to say I would definitely
hesitate I pitting my brain-mind and current education against
that of the MASTERS and H.P.B. who declared Themselves to be the
three who collaborated in writing the SECRET DOCTRINE.
Yes, there are many references that can be corrected to their
originals, miss-spelled words, etc.. but that has nothing to do
with the actual TRUTHS offered for us to consider and then to
find out if there are reasonable.
As I understand it the material they provided was designed to
provide us with the missing keys to a wider survey of the ETERNAL
The errors may be those of the first proof readers and earliest
assistants to H.P.B. -- and I would rather let those details "go"
than use them as objects of obstruction to my grasping of what
LIES BEHIND and BEYOND them.
Are you so sure of those "defects" (which scholiasts so enjoy
finding) ? are you sure that your finding of them is not leading
you to something deeper? I would say our brain minds dance at
the thought of discovering "an error."
What can be done? Mark it for further refinement and correction
(not in the text) but as a FOOTNOTE or COMMENT -- but never
interfere with the ORIGINAL for the reason we are NOT SURE OF THE
REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE OR WHO INSTALLED IT.
No sense of "discover" or "pride" need sweep over us -- "Ah !
H.P.B. has made another mistake !" -- And then, what is gained ?
Are we perhaps blinding ourselves to something far more valuable
? These are dangerous waters I think -- and while noting the
differences, I do not let them deter me from those TRUTHS which I
perceive are available for me to use and grasp.
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 7:06 AM
Subject: Theos-World original versus Boris de Zirkoff editions of
THE SECRET DOCTRINE
At 12:11 PM 5/17/01 +0100, you wrote:
>You make some good points in your post to Tony.
>If I understand Tony correctly, I think he is suggesting that
>photographs of the planets are simply about the exterior aspect
of life, the
>exoteric, which can have a way of taking our attention away from
>'inner', the esoteric.
The inner side would consist, I'd think, of mind inspired by
by buddhi-manas. That is thought with "something more". Anything
inspires, uplifts, or evokes deeper reflection would qualify in
sense. Anything that leads to intellectualism without the fire of
spirit is exoteric.
I'm not sure that someone attracted to THE SECRET DOCTRINE,
an innate hunger for higher truths, would be misled by
pictures or footnotes. They'd feel themselves pulled to the
most suitable for their needs.
Any supplemental materials would be prone to getting out of
date and tend to seem odd by today's standards. This includes
the lengthy quotes and commentaries by Blavatsky on the misguided
science of her era. That material may be of interest from an
historical sense, but has nothing to do with timeless truths.
In reading THE SECRET DOCTRINE, we quickly become skilled at
skimming over the deadwood so that we can pick out the references
to timeless truths.
>Tony seemed to be suggesting this is symbolic of the
>alterations that get made to HPB's texts by scholars who change
>spelling, standardise the use of words, capitalisations,
>change words, phrases & so on.
I'm not sure that you'll find an esoteric truth in an misspelled
Sanskrit word, something that may have resulted from an error
in handwriting, proofreading, or typesetting.
In the many passages quoted in the book, there were a large
of errors. This was revealed by going back to the source
that were quoted. I don't see anything esoteric in misquoting and
prefer myself reading an edition of the book where the quotes
>That's all well and good from a purely
>exoteric point of view but do people take into account what may
have been in
>HPB's mind from an esoteric and Occult point of view when she
wrote what she
>wrote? I think this is the general point Tony is making.
The errors corrected were of a purely superficial nature, errors
that detract from the accuracy and readability of the book. They
were not intentionally made by Blavatsky after careful
The heart of the book can be reached by reading between the
not by looking at how the lines are typeset. It can be found by
tying together various threads of thought from different parts of
the book -- like Dallas is good at -- rather than trying to find
significance in particular spelling errors.
The timeless truths in the book remain the same, regardless of
the edition that one prefers to read. I prefer an easier to read
and more accurate edition of the book, feeling comfortable that
the only changes were readily identifiable errors. Someone else,
perhaps fearing that the editing went beyond that and obscured
important ideas in the book, may prefer the original edition.
I can say that from my experience, in a study class that has gone
through the entire first volume, where most in the class are
the original edition and I'm using Boris's edition, that I'm just
as comfortable with the newer edition as I was when the class
I've heard people reading from the original edition and followed
in my copy of the book, and haven't seen the materials and ideas
diverge, except when others were reading Blavatsky's quotes of
the books of others.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application