Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00104)

Hi Mauri,

Did you read that material Daniel put together and I provided the link
to? 

There wasn't a third volume to destroy. HPB put most of the third
volume to the flames before her death. At least, that is how I gather
it went. 
The so called third volume is a combination of 'miscellaneous material
found in HPB's desk' (this is in the preface as well I think) and the
ES-material. Or at least a large portion of that. 

She did edit some, but that is pretty standard procedure in
bookwriting. The only difference is that HPB didn't have the chance to
check the editing. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> Katinka wrote: <<
> 
> <<I don't think you have your facts straight. 
> Besant did not start the
> Liberal Catholic Church, nor was she much 
> involved in it (if she had
> been I doubt there would have been an all 
> mail clergy). >>
> 
> Sorry, apparently my qualifiers didn't do 
> much (?): I thought I was speculating more 
> than factating in that post (not that ...). 
> I picked up mention of "Liberal Catholic 
> Church" in relation to Besant in Cleather's 
> GREAT BETRAYAL. But ... ?
> 
> <<Also, Besant was one of the few people who 
> took full responsibility
> for her belief that Krishnamurti was the 
> Messiah.>>
> 
> I got the impression from Cleather's GREAT 
> BETRAYAL that Leadbeater might've influenced 
> Besant on that score. And, in turn, 
> Leadbeater might've been influenced by ... ? 
> I'm wondering exactly who/what really 
> influenced Leadbeater, since he seems to have 
> (according to Cleather?)influenced Besant. 
> Anyway, I plead guilty to not having read 
> much of Besant's or Leadbeater's writings, 
> except for Besant's Preface to SD III, so I 
> wonder if I might've been (possibly ...) 
> somewhat over-influenced by Cleather's 
> writings, maybe ... Except that I can't seem 
> to figure out why/how Besant (as per my 
> interpretation of Cleather) failed in keeping 
> at least one original, unedited version of SD 
> III (among other things?) intact enough to 
> pass on, in whatever condition it was found. 
> My read of Besant's Preface to SD III 
> (thanks to Jerome C)tends to suggest that she 
> wanted the reader to believe in her wisdom 
> when she wrote:
> 
> <<In "The Mystery of Buddha" a further 
> difficulty arose; some of the Sections had 
> been written four or five times over, each 
> version containing some sentences that were 
> not in the others; I have pieced these 
> versions together,taking the fullest as 
> basis, and inserting therein everything added 
> in any other versions. It is, however, 
> with some hesitation that I have
> included these Sections in the Secret 
> Doctrine . >>
> 
> But, to me, the words << I have pieced these 
> versions together,taking the fullest as 
> basis, and inserting therein everything added 
> in any other versions. >> tends to suggest 
> that she might've been interpreting what HPB 
> was trying to say, and so might've been 
> adding her own thoughts, edits into another 
> authors work (ie, as if regardless of 
> considers about what might be seen as a 
> unique circumstance?). To me, Besant's 
> wording isn't clear enough about the extent 
> of her editing. To me, Besant's wording in 
> that Preface tends to seem evasive, vague, 
> curious: as if, on the one hand, she were 
> trying to allay fears that she might've 
> altered the manuscript with her editing, as 
> per <<<I therefore do not feel justified in 
> coming between the author and the public, 
> either by altering the statements, to make 
> them consistent with fact, or by suppressing 
> the Sections.>>, but the nature of her 
> explanation about the editing that she does 
> admits to doing, on the other hand, leaves me 
> in the dark, in that her words seem to imply 
> (per my interpetation) that she seems to have 
> hoped that the reader might be likely to 
> assume that she knew what she was doing, for 
> whatever reason. But, for all I know, Besant 
> may have been advised by HPB to offer 
> whatever Prefacial statements Besant saw fit 
> enough. Cleather seems to differ, though, 
> apparently? Anyway, of course my vague may 
> not be your vague, so ...
> 
> Here' the Preface, again, as I got it from a 
> Jerome C.
> 
> <<Preface
> 
> The task of preparing this volume for the 
> press has been a difficult and anxious one, 
> and it is necessary to state clearly what has 
> been done. The papers given to me by H.P.B. 
> were quite unarranged, and had no obvious 
> order; I have therefore taken each paper as a 
> separate Section, and have arranged them as 
> sequentially as possible. With the exception 
> of the correction of grammatical errors and 
> the elimination of obviously un-English 
> idioms, the papers are as H.P.B. left them, 
> save as otherwise marked. In a few cases I 
> have filled in a gap, but any such addition 
> is enclosed within square brackets, so as to 
> be distinguished from the text. In "The 
> Mystery of Buddha" a further difficulty 
> arose; some of the Sections had been written 
> four or five times over, each version 
> containing some sentences that were not in 
> the others; I have pieced these versions 
> together,taking the fullest as basis, and 
> inserting therein everything added in any 
> other versions. It is, however, with some 
> hesitation that I have included these 
> Sections in the Secret Doctrine .
> 
> Together with some most suggestive thought, 
> they contain very numerous errors of fact, 
> and many statements based on exoteric 
> writings, not on esoteric knowledge. They 
> were given into my hands to publish, as part 
> of the Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine, 
> and I therefore do not feel justified in 
> coming between the author and the public, 
> either by altering the statements, to make 
> them consistent with fact, or by suppressing 
> the Sections. She says she is acting entirely 
> on her own authority, and it will be obvious 
> to any instructed reader that she makes - 
> possibly deliberately - many statements so 
> confused that they are mere blinds, and other 
> statements - probably inadvertently - that 
> are nothing more than the exoteric 
> misunderstandings of esoteric truths. The 
> reader must here, as everywhere, use his own 
> judgment, but feeling bound to publish these 
> Sections, I cannot let them go to the public 
> without a warning that much in them is 
> certainly erroneous.
> 
> Doubtless, had the author herself issued this 
> book, she would have entirely rewritten the 
> whole of this division; as it was, it seemed 
> best to give all she had said in the 
> different copies, and to leave it in its 
> rather unfinished state, for students will 
> best like to have what she said as she said 
> it, even though they may have to study it 
> more closely than would have been the case 
> had she remained to finish her work. The 
> quotations made have been as far as possible 
> found, and correct references given; in this 
> most laborious work a whole band of earnest 
> and painstaking students,under the guidance 
> of Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, have been my willing 
> assistants. Without their aid it would not 
> have been possible to give the references, as 
> often a whole book had to be searched 
> through, in order to find a paragraph of a 
> few lines.
> 
> This volume completes the papers left by 
> H.P.B., with the exception of a few scattered 
> articles that yet remain and that will be 
> published in her own magazine Lucifer. Her 
> pupils are well aware that few will be found 
> in the present generation to do justice to 
> the occult knowledge of H.P.B., and to her 
> magnificent sweep of thoughts, but as she can 
> wait to future generations for the 
> justification of her greatness as a teacher, 
> so can her pupils afford to wait for the 
> justification of their trust. ANNIE BESANT.
>