Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00043)

>Ian and Dallas et al,

>I would appreciate your comments on the following material that I have
>compiled to try to elucidate the problem surrounding the contents of
>volume III of the SD.

>Daniel


>In summary, the extant volume I of the SD manuscript preserved in the
>Adyar Archives is concrete evidence as to what was in volume I as of
>late 1886. An outline of that content can be seen in the table
>already given above and which I give again:

>http://blavatskyarchives.com/sdiiitab.htm

>This is the same material and volumes seen by Bertram Keighley
>several months later in London.

Hello Daniel,
I cannot fault your logic. I agree with you that what
was Vol I became Vol III. Are you saying that there is an existing
manuscript of this Vol III preserved in the Adyar Archives ? That Vol III
actually exists but has not been yet published ? If this is so, why did
GRS Mead not refer to it ? This is the crucial question. We are looking
for Vol III. If you are saying that it exists in Adyar then our quest is
over. What I thought everyone was saying is lost, is not. It's in Adyar,
but not yet published. Is this what you are saying ?

Orra Best,
Ian