Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00016)

Hi Dallas and all of you,

What ? Interesting.

Dallas wrote:
"By chance have you seen a letter from Subba Row reprinted in
THE THEOSOPHICAL FORUM (Point Loma) Vol. VI. No. 7, March
15, 1935, pp 185 ... "Leaves from theosophical History" ?
I find S. Rao gives some reasons for his reticence, and also
gives some of the rather strict interpretations of
discipline in the occult schools. Very curious reading.."

Can we have that letter emailed - online - Dallas or is it to long ?

from
Sufilight with peace and love...









----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-B-Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Page 570 of THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT [1925 ed.] about SD Vol. III


> July 12 2002
> 
> Many thanks for your good comments Daniel.
> 
> I can see some difficulties from the point of view of exact
> physical securing of proofs. I have no more access to any
> "primary" documents that I know of, or that you do not
> already seem to have yourself.
> 
> I do a lot of thinking on the nature of certain "reticence "
> that H PB and others in those days exercised. Trying to
> fill in the blanks at this stage and over 100 years after
> the events is not easy at all. Of course there will be
> guess work and surmise. The only appeal can be to reason and
> to continuity of a train of thought. I sympathise with some
> aspects of those.
> 
> My methods would not be accepted by "scholars" of today and
> their pre-set criteria. But I am not very concerned with
> that. Their perception of "gaps" cannot be reconciled if
> there are no physical documents -- true.
> 
> Here is a for instance:
> 
> By chance have you seen a letter from Subba Row reprinted in
> THE THEOSOPHICAL FORUM (Point Loma) Vol. VI. No. 7, March
> 15, 1935, pp 185 ... "Leaves from theosophical History" ?
> I find S. Rao gives some reasons for his reticence, and also
> gives some of the rather strict interpretations of
> discipline in the occult schools. Very curious reading..
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Dallas.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: danielhcaldwell
> [mailto:comments@blavatskyarchives.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: Page 570 of THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT [1925 ed.]
> about SD Vol. III
> 
> Dallas, you write:
> 
> "H.P.Blavatsky sent the original draft to Subba Row in
> Madras
> to review. He found that too many of the Brahmanical
> esoteric secrets were to be revealed. He could not stand
> that, and that is what set him against H.P.Blavatsky see
> The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925) pp. 51, 137, 150, 235,
> 570. That draft has been retained in the Adyar library. H
> P B then rewrote those pages and we have that version in the
> "original 1888 Edition" of the S D."
> 
> Dallas, there are a number of confusions and misstatements
> in what
> you write above. And I see that your key idea in what you
> write
> above apparently originates from what is given on page 570
> of THE
> THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, 1925 edition.
> 
> It would also appear that this material on p. 570 can be
> found
> online. I now quote the main portion of this material as
> found on
> the WWW:
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> The utter disappearance without a trace left behind, of the
> genuine
> Third and Fourth Volumes of the Secret Doctrine remains to
> this day
> an unrevealed mystery. And as to Mrs. Besant's spurious
> "Third
> Volume," her own Preface alone is ample to convince any
> careful
> student, able to sift statements, that it is nothing more
> than a
> hodge-podge of rejected manuscripts, "literary remains,"
> private
> papers originally issued to the E.S.T. during the life-time
> of
> H.P.B., and largely rejected manuscript of the first volume
> of the
> Original Edition. For it is, or should be, well known to
> every
> Theosophical student that, as repeatedly announced in the
> earlier
> volumes of "The Theosophist," H.P.B.'s original intention
> was that
> the "Secret Doctrine" should be a revised edition of "Isis
> Unveiled,"
> and in pursuance of that intention she wrote one entire
> volume, prior
> to 1886, when returning confidence and trust in her by the
> mass of
> members of the T.S. enabled her to enlarge her plan and
> write an
> entirely new work. A copy of that early first volume was
> sent by
> H.P.B. to Subba Row for criticism and comment. Followed his
> breach
> with H.P.B.(6) as already narrated. He refused to do
> anything with
> it, but kept the manuscript. It is matter from that rejected
> manuscript which is incorporated in Mrs. Besant's "Third
> Volume."
> And, -- notable phenomenon -- the fact is admitted by Mrs.
> Besant
> herself in "The Theosophist" for March, 1922 -- twenty-five
> years
> after the event. Why did she concoct this spurious "Third
> Volume" in
> the first instance? And why did she in 1922 let slip the
> truth which
> in 1897 she not only suppressed, but replaced by a
> deliberate untruth?
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> [Extracted from:
> http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/TheTheosophicalMovemen
> t-
> Series/Chapter-31.html ]
> 
> To view this extract online the reader will have to
> carefully paste
> all of the link into the address field of one's browser.
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> SOME OF MY COMMENTS:
> 
> A number of general assertions are made in the quoted text
> on the WWW
> but the reader is NOT given access (or even citations) to
> the primary
> sources from which these generalized statements are made.
> 
> 
> And I call attention to the following statement in the
> above-quoted
> text:
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> And as to Mrs. Besant's spurious "Third Volume," her own
> Preface
> alone is ample to convince any careful student, able to sift
> statements, that it is nothing more than a hodge-podge of
> rejected
> manuscripts, "literary remains," private papers originally
> issued to
> the E.S.T. during the life-time of H.P.B., and largely
> rejected
> manuscript of the first volume of the Original Edition.
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Please pay special attention to the wording that reads:
> 
> ". . . largely REJECTED manuscript of the first volume of
> the
> Original Edition. . . ."
> 
> Rejected by whom? By HPB???
> 
> What are the anonymous writers trying to convey to us?
> 
> That HPB wrote "one entire volume, prior to 1886" that was
> later "rejected" [by whom?] and completely set aside and
> that
> subsequently HPB wrote a SD manuscript completely new???
> 
> 
> DTB I would assume that the Masters and H P B were
> responsible for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Dallas, can you specify in some understandable detail what
> the
> contentions of the anonymous authors are in the above quoted
> extracts
> from page 570 of THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1925 ed.)?
> 
> If not, can you expand on the statement you made that is
> quoted at
> the very beginning of this posting?
> 
> I am seriously trying to understand what is being stated in
> both your
> quote and from the quote from page 570 of the TM book.
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>