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

RE: Theos-World: SD original versus Boris de Zirkoff edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE

May 22, 2001 04:49 AM
by dalval14

Dear Eldon:

I India SWABHAVAT was always considered as the basis for
universal differentiation -- as a "substance" Suddha Sattva
(Glos. 311) "A substance not subject to the qualities of matter;
a luminiferous...invisible substance, of which the bodies of the
Gods and highest Dhyanis are formed. Philosophically --... a
conscious state of spiritual Ego-ship rather than any essence."

Under karma, (universal and individual) there is simultaneously
an emanation (universal) of the points of INTELLIGENCE
(Individual ATMA from MAHA-ATMA or PARAMATMA) and the provision
to them of the needed "forms" -- an aggregation of samskaras
(little-lives - monads -- which provide the "vehicles" (koshas,
upadhis) for INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS to manifest, either
Universally or Individually in every least part of universal

It is difficult to frame with words the idea of a previous series
of Manvantaras in which every "monad" (of today) also lived then,
and accumulated experience. And then in this one, it RE-AWAKENED
as an INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE and clothed itself (with Nature's
assistance) with the "vehicles" (made up of Monads of lesser
experience) it would be needing in this Manvantara for its
continued progress. In one way it may be looked on as an
advancing army with its General (a MONAD of advanced development)
at its head and around, and with in are innumerable "monads" of
lesser experience and individualization -- all potentially of the
same CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE -- that form the various
divisions needed to keep such an "army" cohesive. [ We see
something like that in our own physical body organization. ]

essence of "MATTER" (call it MAHA-BUDDHI or MULA-PRAKRITI) you
have the MONAD -- ATMA/BUDDHI forever conjoined. -- It may also
be looked on as an intelligent "self-forming substance." It
maybe said to give "substance/form" to itself as needed depending
on the plane on which it is operating or sentient. The
designation and idea of SPIRIT WITHIN SUBSTANCE might be hazarded
even though it sounds paradoxical. It is the sentient and
universal "formative evolution" -- not "creation" since all its
vitality and the karmic impulse and limitations are carry-overs
from its existence and development in past manvantaras. The
designation "efficient cause" has been used -- which implies the
KARMA of the individual monad wrapped up into the whole congeries
of Karmas relating to its brother monads and the whole supporting
and supported by the MASTER MONAD a the head of that 'army" of
progress. I think the in the S.D. I pp 570-575 will be fund the
illustrations for this. Also in H.P.B.'s GLOSSARY: pp 310, 314
you will find her explanations.

See also MAHATMA LETTERS pp 90 138 140 ; S.D. I 52 61 571
bottom; Is I 250 292;
Is II 264; Mod Pan. 148-9

I agree that this is very metaphysical and hard for the newbee to
grasp. -- but in trying to make IT COMPREHENSIBLE materializing
and limiting it is not of real assistance. I think it is
something that takes years to grow into to grasp. In the
meantime we need the guidance of practical law and ethics to help
us where we are. When we start to wonder where we came from and
what we are in essence then this information becomes valuable and
if in the past we were given some material "simple or easy" view,
we would not be thanked for it. In my opinion it is sufficient
to give the references and allow the student to ferret out the
meanings he heeds at the stage when he will need them. The
development of intermediary understanding cannot be foreshortened
or we may later stand accused of misleading.

As to copyright -- those changes introduced by Boris, etc... will
only be copyrighted for a limited time according to current law.
If they are useful then who is going to worry? I do not think
anyone is out to make a profit our of WISDOM which is free to all
? There is something in this which in a vague way might be taken
to sound a little threatening in this and I do not understand it.

The SECRET DOCTRINE is the triple production of H.P.B. and the
two BROTHERS -- PATH VOL. 8 P. 1-3 . The modifications if any
belong to the KARMA of those who make them. The future of the
impact of THEOSOPHY will affect the world -- the ripples of any
effort will affect the future -- and EVENTUALLY OURSELVES when

Best wishes,



-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker []
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: Theos-World: SD original versus Boris de Zirkoff

Yes, it looks like a correction to the text, rather than
a spelling correction or a correction of inaccurate quotes.
We see "subhava" defined as being composed of two words,
"su" and "bhava". The extra third word, "sva," is not part
of that definition.

In this passage, there is no second guessing of some
deeply esoteric truth, with the potential loss of actual
meaning if the guess is incorrect. The meaning is fairly
plain and obvious. The change seems of benefit to the
reader, since it represents one less bit of extraneous
noise to deal with.

The purpose of the book is to facilitate the transfer
of knowledge, and on a deeper level to put the student
in touch with teachings that are not subject to being
captured in specific, concrete words.

It's important to keep the best interests of the
theosophical student in mind when presenting these

In balance, I still the many improvements -- including
spelling corrections, corrections to quotations,
typographical changes making quotes stand apart from
the body text, etc. -- make the book much more suitable
for study by all but the most exacting scholar, more
interested in the history of the book than what is
being said in it.

If a careful review of changes reveals an error, it
would be the same as if other errors are found in the
text. They can be corrected in a future edition of
the book, which makes it still better than earlier

The real issue, as I see it, with the Boris edition
of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, concerns its copyright.
The original edition of the book is in the public
domain, and can be freely distributed in print
and electronic form. The de Zirkoff edition is
copyrighted by the Theosophical Publishing House,
and permission needs to be obtained, and possible
royalties paid, for reprinting passages from it.

Although it may be the best edition for theosophical
students, because it cannot be freely distributed,
it's still preferable to cite the original edition.
This will remain so until or unless the Theosophical
Publishing House might chose to put the book in
the public domain.

-- Eldon

At 12:21 PM 5/21/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Dallas
>A friend was having a look at the de Zirkoff edition, and the
book fell open
>at page 61 (vol. I):
>Original edition:
>"Subhava, from which Svabhavat, is composed of two words: Su
>"handsome," good;" Sva, "self;" and bhava, "being" or "states of
>Boris de Zirkoff's edition:
>Subhava, from which Svabhavat, is composed of two words: Su
>"handsome," "good;" and bhava, "being" or "states of being."
>It is not a spelling or quote change: '"Sva, "self;"' is simply
>in the de Zirkoff edition.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>Sent: 20 May 2001 9:41 am
>Subject: RE: Theos-World: SD original versus Boris de Zirkoff
edition of
>Sunday, May 20, 2001
>Dear Tony:
>I did not realize there were all those changes. Thanks for
>letting us know.
>If you find more will you share ?
>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