Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00076)

Aug 7 2002


Re: Contents of SECRET DOCTRINE MSS of 1886 sent to Adyar
as Vol I
and Volume THREE of The SECRET DOCTRINE 1897.

Dear Dan:


I rise to your query (see below). So let me offer the
following thoughts.


>From H P B's correspondence with Sinnett, and the notes made
by countess Wachmeister ( I am depending on memory ), this
1886 MSS copy of "Vol. I of The SECRET DOCTRINE" as H P B
had written it up to then, was sent to Adyar for Olcott to
place before Subba Row for his editing and comments. I
noticed that included in those 1886 MSS were parts of what
later became in Vol. I the INTRODUCTORY and the PROEM.
Apparently their prefatory nature demanded that they be so
used. (I have not recently gone over the THIRD Vol. of The
SECRET DOCTRINE, so, as I do not have enough time, I am not
able to comment on a point to point basis -- but only tell
you in general of what my memory recalls. You will have to
excuse any inaccuracies I make here on that account.)

Subba Row refused, as he felt that too much of the secrets
of Occultism were being reveled. He apparently, only looked
on H P B as his co-student, an vies]wed her writing as
entirely what a student might write -- in other words, he
did not recognize the "Masters hand" there. As I say, he
did not realize that the Masters were themselves changing
the scheme of presentation, and that H PB was "following
instructions." The questions evoked as a result of the
publication of ISIS UNVEILED, and the articles in
THEOSOPHIST, demanded the revelation of much more
information for the educated and interested public to
absorb. [ I would go so far as to say that the Masters
foresaw that eventually their correspondence with Sinnett
would be published and made available for the public to
compare with the books and articles of H P B. To me it is
highly significant that such comparison reveals a unity of
concept, information, and method. The implied ethics are of
the highest.] The S D MSS (1886) was not returned to H P B,
but was kept in Adyar and it became a part of their
archives. So, to me the differences are accounted for, and
the source for some fragments of the material that Mrs. A.
Besant published as the THIRD VOLUME (1897) is discovered.
To me, that is an incomplete attempt to place together a
disjointed mixture of published and unpublished material
and, after untraceable editing, place H P B's name on it --
as a kind of novelty. After Judge's death (1896), it gave
Mrs. A. Besant a "boost" that could not be easily refuted --
but I may be over-characterizing here, in this, my personal
opinion.

H P B went to England with the original MSS (1887), and (I
presume), she made her additions (then and later) to it.
She placed it (all 3 volumes) before the Keightleys. They
read and studied it and suggested that the scheme of
publication be changed. They suggested that Vol. I be
COSMOGENESIS, Vol. 2 be ANTHROPOGENESIS, and Vol. 3 be the
History of Great Adepts.

As a result we have the 1888 Edition in 2 volumes.
COSMOGENESIS and ANTHROPOGENESIS based on the Stanzas that
were selected from the BOOK OF DZYAN, for explanation. A
totally untraceable language (Senzar) and a totally
(hitherto) untraceable Book: of Dzyan -- even the Tibetan,
and the Sanskrit translations are yet to be found. The
publication of Vol. 3 was not undertaken up to the time of
Mme. H. P. Blavatsky 's death in May 1891. Mr. Judge her
executor cabled on hearing of her death asking that her room
be sealed pending his arrival in London. At the time of her
death (May 8th), Mrs. Annie Besant was at sea, on a liner
returning to England. Mr. Judge says nothing that I know
about the MSS for the THIRD Volume of The SECRET DOCTRINE
being in her rooms.

The MSS of the 3rd Volume may have been altered by H P B. I
don't recall anything definite about that being available.

I would not assume that the 3rd VOLUME of The SECRET
DOCTRINE edited by Mrs. Annie Besant, and published in 1897
(after W Q Judge's death in 1896) -- which included the
material sent to Adyar, and other things, represented the
THIRD VOLUME OF The SECRET DOCTRINE as H P B would have
edited and published it.

If that is assumed then indeed we are stretching things.

1.	We do not know if H P B modified the material sent in
1886 to Adyar after that date. I would assume she did, but
of course, I have no concrete basis to offer. It is my
opinion after many years study.

2.	If modified, and I assume it was, then why was it never
produced or mentioned clearly by Judge, her executor, the
Keightleys, or Mead ? After H P B's death, some of the MSS
of articles in her "desk" were published in LUCIFER. But
nothing was said about the MSS of the THIRD VOLUME being
considered or edited for possible publication later on.
This omission is to me significant. I would have thought
that this would be of primary importance then (in 1891).

3.	If, as H P B said, it was to be a history of the Great
Adepts, then the material published in 1897 as the THIRD
VOLUME S D does not seem to exactly or completely agree
with the scheme as outlined by H P B and referred to in
several places in Vols. I and II.

4.	Why should H P B use only the MSS that was sent to Adyar
? Why would she not have added to it? She wrote that it
was READY. So she must have prepared a great deal of
written MSS for that purpose.

5.	She added that the MSS for the FOURTH VOLUME was almost
ready. What happened to that ? Why was that not added to
the publication ? Why did it receive no mention ?

I have pondered these things, and arrived at no conclusion
beyond being satisfied that it takes more than one long
lifetime to adequately study even the first TWO VOLUMES of
The SECRET DOCTRINE (not to mention the information made
available in ISIS UNVEILED). It would be very strange to
find a THIRD VOLUME of the S D emerging after such a
substantial gap in time. No one seems to think or mention
that.

There is enough there (in Vols. I & II) for several lives
of intense study. Many lacunae of the "past" seem to be
filled if one takes all of that which H P B writes seriously
(books, articles, answers, observations, foot-notes,
letters, etc... To me there is obvious a single trend, a
single purpose, and an undeviating presentation of the
philosophy which is named: "Theosophy." But Academia has
its blinders in place. And as time passes there are many
corroborations of what H P B wrote about, constantly coming
in that support H P B's presentation as in Vols. I & II.

Academia has never treated H P B's SECRET DOCTRINE seriously
as an assistance in securing a better grasp of pre-history,
the history of past civilizations and the emergence of Man
as a thinking, intelligent being, also, the distribution of
religious thought and instruction, and the unity of ethical
and moral teachings to be traced in them all, etc...

The panorama of "Creation / Evolution," and the scheme
offered in The SECRET DOCTRINE, of the evolution of the
Cosmos, and, of the development of mankind on our Earth,
have not been considered seriously or consecutively as a
basis for research -- too much protection of theories, and a
concealment and cover-up of facts and relicts is evident.
Academia has sought to protect itself from adjustments that
would truly rationalize the gaps they are still faced with.
The theories and hypotheses that have been placed and placed
before new students as "truths," are constantly being
defended as factual evidence of their inaccuracy is
discovered and comes to the fore. Few seem interested in
recording or pointing to this. The case of Emanuel
Velikovsky, and his writings in the 40s and 50s; and the
pressure placed on Macmillan Publishers is known but to a
few these days. But that illustrates how Academia can
provide, and force, a "cover-up."

If we write, so as to satisfy Academia and their prejudices,
we fail to grasp the wide panorama offered by Theosophy. To
my mind Academia can creep at its own snail pace --- it is
still a babe, born in the time of the Reformation -- of
only 300-400 years of age, and is gradually freeing itself
of the burden of Church dogmas, short-term views and
self-serving attitudes, which are some 2,000 years old. It
is important to recognize that our Western academies are
Western -- they do not encompass the world and its past, nor
are they capable of impartially arbitrating on its past or
the nature of other cultures in an unprejudiced fashion.

It is a child of the West, of European, and now, of American
development, and it fails to recognize that its new-found
freedom is one that has been enjoyed for centuries,
millennia, by the Oriental scholars and scientists of India,
China, Tibet, Mongolia, etc... But (our Western Academia)
will continue to creep, as long as the literal
interpretation of the Bible and its many conflicting and
confusing translations are taken as a basis for serious
consideration -- as a blurred view of pre-history. And, for
as long as Academia insists on the teaching of theories of
evolution and cosmogenesis, as though they were proven and
demonstrable facts. Who dares challenge her ?

We all know that the Jewish traditions and the Kabalah are
couched in terms that truly underlie the superficial and
apparent writings. Who seeks seriously to follow the lead
of ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE to really unravel
the secrets of the Kabalah and the Zohar ? Who has traced
their sources? Has the work of the orientalists led them
from those mangled and reconstructed texts to the "Kabala of
the Orient?" What was that ? [ See S D I pp. 8 to 11,
and particularly note at the top of p. 11 what H P B says
about the "revenge" of the Rabbis. (other references to
this are S D I xli, 115fn, 319, 390, II 471, 537 ) ]

So long as sectarianism and religious dogmas fetter minds,
so long will there be confusion. So long as students kowtow
to the pronouncements of Academia, that confusion will
deepen. Literalism, to me, is a "snare and a delusion."
But I recognize, for some, there is no other pathway. In my
opinion, Academia will never be satisfied, nor deign to
actually consider Theosophy seriously and the record of
HISTORY, which The SECRET DOCTRINE displays ( S D I 267
line 4 from the top ).

H P B writes of the aim of her work at the bottom of p. viii
(S D I - Preface), she additionally states positively on p.
23 (bottom, S D I ) "...this work is written for the
instruction of students of Occultism and not for the benefit
of philologists...."
I assume this includes Academics, Orientalists, Scientists,
and those who tie themselves to literal and superficial
understandings, and seek to bind everyone else (by fear) to
their "authority." Those who don't study for themselves and
maintain their own conclusions, fall under this
misapprehension, that the Academies are the sole possessors
of Truth.

I am firmly convinced there are depths of instruction in The
SECRET DOCTRINE; but it will always be the task of
individual students to discover those. Keeping the book
shut and unstudied, does not add to any one's store of
information. If anyone desires to be considered a
"Theosophist" then such study is recommended. They will then
frame their own opinions and, what I may think and say, or
what you may say or do, is not going to affect them. We
cannot "convince" any one. The only conviction of any value
is that which arises from self-effort and study. I think
this freedom is innate in all human minds. It is
exemplified by the universal power to choose. Egoity
implies choice. No Ego -- no choice. Choice -- Ego is
there.

The test is it the application. The first hurdle is: Is
the concept of Spirit-universality and of Soul-immortality a
possibility, nay -- an actuality The next is: If that is
true, their reincarnation is possible. The third is ethical
responsibility: It is a code impersonal and impartial that
everyone can live (that is: Is Karma a fact? Are ethics and
morals real?) so as to make those useful in one's own life.
For this no mentor is needed. But it requires very deep
thinking.

But I see I have diverged from your main query, although to
me there is an important relation ,if one desires to
understand
H P B's intent and also perceive what others may have done
to her writings by presuming to alter them.

I have noticed that H P B attributes to the Masters of
Wisdom most of her "writings." she calls herself a
"scribe," a "copier." She offers her works as one offers
"culled flowers - created by Nature, but gathered and
offered to others for their enjoyment. Not sequestered and
concealed and hidden from the rest of mankind. In this is a
lesson: To serve and to give.

If that is true then in The SECRET DOCTRINE and in ISIS
UNVEILED and in her articles, footnotes, letters may be
traced the "Master hand." But this self-effacement is not a
pretense in her, nor is her attitude a posture. I sense it
is a recognition of the fact that interior to everyone of us
is the "Master" -- Krishna calls it Ishwara, and says that
it is immortal and one with the universal SPIRIT. Perhaps
this is important.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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



-----Original Message-----
From: danielhcaldwell
[mailto:comments@blavatskyarchives.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:59 PM
To:
Subject Ian's Latest remarks about SD Vol III

Ian, you wrote:

"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 ?"

Ian, what I'm trying to say is that there is in the Adyar
Archives
Vol I of the SD manuscript from 1886. Look at the contents
at:

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

In mid-1887, this volume I became volume III.

Therefore Volume I in the Adyar Archives is "in effect"
Volume III.

The chart above shows in the 2nd column the contents of
volume I from
1886. All of this material (with 3 exceptions) showed up in
the
published volume III of 1897. Why?

My answer is: because Volume I of 1886 became Volume III of
1887.

Please remember that to handwrite a manuscript in the 1880s
was a
laborious task. And to make one copy of it in longhand was
an
equally laborious task. Therefore it is highly unlikely that
there
were multiple copies of the same articles.

Yet the articles found in the 1886 Volume I show up in the
1897
Volume III.

I'll let you and Dallas ponder on this. Comments
appreciated. I
hope Dallas will focus in on this point and make some
comments.
I will write something later on your observations about
G.R.S. Mead.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm


CUT