Theos-Talk Archives (June 2001 Message tt00043)

Monday, June 11, 2001

Re: Editing The SECRET DOCTRINE without clearly indicating
The editorial work done.

Dear Dennis:

You are perfectly correct that the usage and meaning of words
alters with time and the changes we see arising in many
vernacular vocabularies. But the world that uses English as a
practical or scholarly means of communication is not limited to
America or to American usages. The SECRET DOCTRINE was not
written for a country or a race, but for all.

Unlike the Bible and other ancient books, originally written in
languages we did not learn at birth, or which are so old as to be
relics in themselves, we do not need any interpreters or
translators to read The SECRET DOCTRINE for ourselves - even if
we may need a Dictionary, an Encyclopedia and a well stocked
Library to assist us in our study.

However, in the case of THEOSOPHY I would observe we have one
advantage. It is that we can refer to the ORIGINAL as it was
WRITTEN in BOOKS and MAGAZINE ARTICLES. Copies of those
ORIGINALS are still around and for the serious student this is
indeed a boon. He does not have to battle the introduction (in
transmission) of another's concepts or reasoning, however well
intended.

You may think this is unimportant and desire to have the freedom
to choose whatever "editor" or "interpreter" or "meaning" you
like to work from, and apply them to what you read. No one
denies another this privilege. But, one might observe that it
leads to some confusion when students get together to compare
their understanding of some of the deeper or more technical
aspects of Theosophical doctrine or theory. H.P.B. makes the
purpose of The SECRET DOCTRINE, and her mission, quite clear in
the last 3 pages of the 2nd Vol. of The SECRET DOCTRINE.

The only valid reason for using the ORIGINAL, without the
interposition of a commentator, editor, "filter," is that the
student need not try to double-guess the changes in meaning that
such an intermediary might impose in terms of his/her own
understanding. In fact those alterations might be precisely
those that today no longer agree with the original terms H.P.B.
used.

The DIRECT CONTACT with the original enables the students to make
his own mistakes, if he does. Then they are his, only, and he
cannot blame an intermediary.

The question of LITERALISM is, agreeably, a barrier, but the
problem is not of "who is right" any longer. It is shifted to
"was the meaning altered?" And: "Can we now adjust that, and
arrive at a consensus ? The matter of lost time and effort looms
large in such cases.

I do not seem to see any dogmatism being imposed. But I do see
many, who may have in the past, selected and used (unaware to
themselves) an altered edition (where the editing is not MARKED
CLEARLY) of the Theosophical book. And they are now confronted
with the task of reviewing it for accuracy with the original
text.

In effect, the problem revolves around the "tradition" one
selected and still uses. If there is annoyance and dogmatism it
is wrapped up in that single problem. It does not arise from the
original writing.

As a "for instance," one cannot blame Jesus for mangled reports
that emerge from his reporting apostles, and the later from
successive translators. The same concept might just as easily be
addressed to the KABALAH, the TORAH, and its many editors and
alterations, or to the great ancient Hindu, Chinese, Tibetan and
Buddhist texts. All have been translated. In the actual written
forms still available to us from antiquity, we find that there
are differences in the actual tests which remain unexplained and
almost insoluble today. One is forced to abandon "literalism"
for the more liberal "search for the real meaning." And that is
independent of the words used. Some have called it the "Heart
Doctrine."

Those who insist on using the ORIGINAL WRITINGS from which to
study and grow in understanding are, in my esteem, not being
dogmatic, they are merely being careful.

For their understanding they can (in case of The SECRET
DOCTRINE ) recall that the Mahatmas gave Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden a
signed certificate ( reprinted by Mr. Judge in PATH Magazine,
Vol. 8, p. 1-3 ) This certificate stated that The SECRET
DOCTRINE was the produced under their triple authorship.

Personally, I have a great pity for those who have made
alterations and invisible editing in such an important work. I
include all who may have done this in my mind. On the opposite
hand: I feel gratitude for those who have offered "corrections
needed in the ORIGINAL" and that they think will be helpful to
students, but who have been careful to IDENTIFY and FOOTNOTE
their changes so that the said student has a choice.

By what amounts to "concealing" those changes made in the
ORIGINAL (yet using the Original Title) and thus tacitly
attributing those new and interposed changes to the Author - who
has had no chance to agree to them -- they may have blurred or
obscured some meanings. Just how important those altered
meanings and changes are, need not be a subject for restudy if
one deals with the ORIGINALS to begin with.

So I would say: Do not be annoyed with H.P.B. and the Masters,
nor, accuse their language with being 'out-of-step' with present
language usages (Americans are not the only ones in the world
that read or use classical English, and the use of the English
language in Theosophical writing usually is superb) for their
production, but be annoyed (if one has to be) with those who
interposed themselves (without definition) between yourself and
the Original writers.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=============================

-----Original Message-----
From: D----- K---
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:25 PM

Subject: Re: Theos-World original versus Boris de Zirkoff
editions
of THE SECRET DOCTRINE

Yes, not much time has passed, and we do understand the original
words
pretty well, but the meaning of words change with the passage of
time.

Some folks want the words of the Bible to remain static, no
matter
what changes have been made in the meaning, and the modern
understanding of the meaning of the words. It almost looks to me,
that
that viewpoint is what is being advocated here when I hear it
repeated
time and again, that we must concentrate on only the original
words,
in the original published form, as though it is Dogma. HPB really
loved DOGMA, didn't she?

====	CUT =====