Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00069)

Leon,

You wrote the following about my critique of the Judge edition 
as compared to HPB's original edition of the VOICE:

"This is a lot of nit picking baloney. Nothing more 
than a 'tempest in a teapot' based on personal opinions."

Would you ALSO characterize the following statements 
by THE THEOSOPHY COMPANY as "a lot of nit picking baloney"? 
 
Notice how the Theosophy Company criticizes later editions of THE 
SECRET DOCTRINE.  

I put in CAPS key words. I contend that the words in caps (of course 
excluding titles in caps) indicate the standard the Theosophy Company 
was setting up and by which they were criticizing the later editions. 

First the extract by the Theosophy Company and then my final comments.

---------------------------------------------------------

. . . THE SECRET DOCTRINE. . . [was] first published in 1888. . . . 
By 1925 . . . the original edition had long been out of print. At 
that time. . . The Theosophy Company first made available a facsimile 
edition of Madame Blavatsky's great work, in the form of a 
photographic reproduction of the ORIGINAL edition. . . . 

Besides the original edition of 1888 — THE ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED by 
Madame Blavatsky — several other editions of this work have
appeared. 

One of these, the so—called "Third and Revised Edition"
of 1893, is MARRED by many thousands of ALTERATIONS, some of them 
trivial, some ACTUAL MULTILATIONS of the ORIGINAL text. . . . 

The "Third and Revised Edition" was followed by another in
1938 . . . called the "Adyar Edition." Except . . . various
TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES . . . this Adyar edition is substantially the
same as the earlier "REVISED" version.

Still another edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE has been printed from 
reset type. Except for GRATUITOUS "corrections" of the author's 
Sanskrit scholarship. . . . this edition is virtually an accurate 
reproduction of the original text. ITS EXACT AUTHENTICITY, however, 
cannot be determined without LABORIOUS COMPARISON with the 
ORIGINAL. . . . 

With the present printing of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, The Theosophy 
Company continues ITS FUNCTION of providing students and inquirers 
with UNALTERED editions of the ORIGINAL literature of the 
Theosophical Movement. . . . this edition is a PERFECT FACSIMILE of 
the original edition and can be RELIED UPON as such."
-------------------------------------------------------------

Leon, you assert that my critique and the material quoted in 
it "sounds like a vendetta against ULT and WQJ." But what do the 
comments by the Theosophy Company "sound" like? Could their own 
words be characterized (in your famous "Leon" style) as "sounding" 
like a "vendetta" against other Theosophical publishers? 

Let's use some of the arguments in the TC text above and see if they 
also apply to the edition of The Voice edited by Judge.

TC emphasizes the fact that the original edition of the SD is "THE 
ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED by Madame Blavatsky." What are they suggesting 
to the reader with that phrase: THE ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED ?

Well, the ONLY edition of of the "Voice" AUTHORIZED by Madame 
Blavatsky is the original edition of 1889. Right?

Moving on.

If it is true that "the so—called "Third and Revised
Edition" [of THE SECRET DOCTINE] of 1893, is MARRED by many thousands 
of ALTERATIONS, some of them trivial, some ACTUAL MULTILATIONS of the 
ORIGINAL text. . . .", then would it not be accurate to write that 
the VOICE ed. by TC is MARRED by many hundreds of ALTERATIONS, some 
of them trivial, some ACTUAL MUTILATIONS of the ORIGINAL text?

You might object to this last statement. I guess it all comes down 
to what you, I and the Theosophy Company actually mean when we use 
the words MARRED, ALTERATIONS, ACTUAL MUTILATIONS.  

TC writes about the "GRATUITOUS 'corrections' of the author's
[HPB's] Sanskrit scholarship".  

There are what appears to be numerous "corrections" of HPB's Sanskrit 
scholarship in THE VOICE by Judge. Are his "corrections" also 
GRATUITOUS?? I guess it all comes down to what the Theosophy Company 
actually meant when they used the word GRATUITOUS. But if you used 
the same standard they used, would Judge's corrections ALSO be 
labelled GRATUITOUS??

Certainly would it not be accurate to say the following about the 
Judge ed. of THE VOICE":

"ITS EXACT AUTHENTICITY, however, cannot be determined without 
LABORIOUS COMPARISON with the ORIGINAL. . . ."

Wasn't the Theosophy Company giving the following message?

Why go through this LABORIOUS COMPARISON with the ORIGINAL when you 
can use the "PERFECT FACSIMILE of the original edition" reprinted by 
the Theosophy Company.

But would not the same reasoning apply to the edition of the Voice 
edited by Judge?

ALSO notice how the Theosophy Company brings up the idea of trust and 
reliability:

". . . this edition is a PERFECT FACSIMILE of the original edition 
and can be RELIED UPON as such."

What's my point you may ask. Here it is:

Why not use the same STANDARDS OR ARGUMENTS given above by the 
Theosophy Company to ALSO evaluate the Judge edition of the VOICE?? 

What's good for the goose, is good for gander. Right, Leon?

Furthermore, for more than 70 years the Judge edition of the VOICE 
has been sold by Theosophy Company/ULT to thousands of new students 
and inquirers BUT THERE WAS NO INDICATION OR NOTICE IN THE BOOK that 
there were "corrections", "revisions", or "alterations" in this TC 
edition.

I have a whole folder of letters and emails from students (mostly 
ULT I suppose) shocked that the TC edition was NOT an unaltered 
facsimile of the original VOICE. Some even accused me of making up 
the whole story that there were "corrections", "revisions" 
or "alterations." Even when I sent photocopies of the original 1889 
edition of the Voice to some "doubting Thomases", a few wrote back 
challenging me and saying HOW DID I KNOW that my photocopies were of 
the real original 1889 ed.? 

Of course, I'm fairly certain that you will say that the issues I've 
brought up in this email "is a lot of nit picking baloney."

BUT would you ALSO say that about the excerpts quoted above from the 
Theosophy Company?

Daniel