Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00071)

In a message dated 10/06/03 9:55:21 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Peter wrote in his post to Leon:
>
>"As a 'by the way', it is not clear to me that 
>Judge did carry out all the alterations to THE VOICE. 
> For prior to Judge's 1893 edition, there was a
>London edition published in 1892, after HPB had died, 
>and probably done by G.R. Mead. This earlier edition 
>contains all the alterations that Daniel mentioned in his recent 
>post. Perhaps Judge did not realise that changes had 
>been made to it when it passed through his hands - who knows. 
>But I wonder, will you and ceertain others still be happy 
>with the alterations made to THE VOICE if it turns out 
>to be altered by Mead and possibly Besant rather than by Judge?"
>
>Leon, did you ever answer Peter's relevant question?

No. I don't have any interest in historical speculations. Besides, I 
couldn't care less about alterations that have no relevance to the teachings per se 
in the VOS -- which are perfectly clear and have all the "Heart" it ever had 
regardless of which version I read. Incidentally, my late wife had a copy of 
the WQJ version autographed by the Dalai Lhama. What's good for the gander is 
certainly good for the goose.

But, if you think it's important, please find the evidence of who made those 
so called "alterations" and tell us all about it. I'm sure some of those 
"certain others" might be interested. Then you can ask them how they feel about 
it. :-)

>I highlight the question again:
>
>". . . I wonder, will you [Leon] and ceertain others still be happy 
>with the alterations made to THE VOICE if it turns out 
>to be altered by Mead and possibly Besant rather than by Judge?"

ibid.

>Tell us Leon, what if this edition of the VOICE "turns out 
>to be altered by Mead and possibly Besant rather than by Judge", 
>does that change in any way your current position???

ibid.

>Daniel
>
>http://hpb.cc

LHM