Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00087)

In a message dated 10/06/03 6:51:39 AM, alpha@dircon.co.uk writes:

><<<William Q. Judge was perfectly
>justified in rephrasing HPB's original words into understandable English
>in his rendition of the VOS -- so as, presumedly, not to confuse the
>uninitiated into thinking that they had any significance to the teachings 
>therein,or to avoid the possibility that they might make HPB appear, 
>to the average student, as being illiterate in our ordinary English 
language. >>>
>
>Isn't what you are describing here, doing just that, taking the HEART,
>the esoteric out of "The Voice of the Silence?"

I hope you don't think that the HEART of the VOS is in its preface. :-)

>"The Voice of the Silence" is "for the daily use of Lanoos (Disciples)."
>(see the title-page). It doesn't say it was for the average student.

Since when does being average stop one from being a disciple of any teacher 
or any discipline they so choose? 

>It is "Dedicated to the Few." (see dedication leaf)

Sure, the "few" among billions who decide that it has some value as a 
profound teaching of the Heart Doctrine. So, I hope you are among those few several 
million people around the world who have taken the choice to study and 
practice theosophy as disciples of either HPB, WQJ, or any other adept teacher, 
living or dead (and in whatever language) who has comparable knowledge and 
spiritual awareness. Why don't we just let their writings speak for themselves, rather 
than worrying about who made a few non essential language changes in 
inconsequential places, to suit their audiences? Especially, in this instance -- 
outside of the "body" or content of the teachings themselves. Remember, Judge was 
an American, as were most of his students/disciples. And he wrote for them -- 
as well as any other literate people who could understand common English. 
So, what's this brouhaha -- brought up by "disgruntled organizationalists" with 
some sort of beef about ULT as a loose association, and WQJ, as one of their 
mentors -- all about?

>Was HPB's concern that of "appearances?" After all she called her magazine
>"Lucifer," in a Victorian and Christian England.
>
And rightly so, since it was intended to give "light" or lucidity to its 
readers. But, who said anything about appearances? We were talking about 
perceptions of prospective students, as well as their language limitations. For 
example, WQJ's condensation of the SD, while completely changing its language to 
common English, took away none of its "Heart," but simply gave the future 
student an overview of what he/she could learn, and later gain a conviction of its 
truth, from studying the mother volumes he digested for them -- without 
changing any of its essential roots or conclusions. 

You can't imagine how valuable it was for me to have read the Ocean before I 
was nine years old when, 30 years later -- (after I had the requisite 
knowledge of the practical world and its science and philosophy, to fully understand 
and apply it) -- I decided it was time to begin a serious, in depth study of 
the SD. 

Besides, what had the name of a publication like "Lucifer" have to do with 
its contents? I'm sure HPB couldn't care less what the mind frozen Victorian 
WASPS of her time might think of her -- since she didn't publish and edit it for 
them to read. (Except, maybe, to needle them and the Jesuits a bit. ;-)
>
>I don't ever recall anyone ever suggesting that H.P.B. was illiterate for
>writing "thin oblong squares." 
>
Well now you've met one. When I first saw that expression in the preface of 
the original VOS (if there was one :-) translated in English, I immediately 
questioned the literacy of the writer or editor (even though I knew the Masonic 
jargon from my father) -- since those esoteric words had no explanation for 
the yet uninitiated reader who might still find the teachings inside of value. 
Use of those words in such a preface was redundant, added nothing to the 
contents of the book (other than convincing an already initiated Mason or Adept 
that the contents were a Masonic Master work) -- and could just as well be stated 
in more understandable terms, such as "golden square," or just plain "square" 
or "rectangle" for the ordinary theosophical student that Judge directed all 
his writings toward. "Oblong square" to the uninitiated but literate reader is 
either an oxymoron, a typographical error, or an illiterate mistake. 
Besides, in Architectural terms the word "square" refers to any flat place of 
assembly between surrounding buildings, regardless of its shape. In New York we have 
rectangular shaped and even circular and triangular shaped "squares." But the 
expression in the preface couldn't have referred to anything but the shape of 
the engraved plates the Book of the Golden Precepts was originally written 
on. In that case, as Judge well knew, those words could confuse and/or be 
meaningless to most theosophical students then, and now. To harangue us about such 
minor editing is still "nit picking."

>When it comes to those who pick the eggs of lice or other such parasites,
>as you so charmingly put it, if it wasn't for those who made the alterations
>(i.e., the parasites who laid the blinking eggs in the first place), there
>would be no nit picking to be done. Those students who wished to study
>H.P.B's writings could then get on with what she wrote!

Ha, ha... So, what's so "esoterically" important about a preface that is 
written solely to convince readers that the writings following it, actually 
translated for uninitiated "disciples," are authentic? Only Masons or other 
initiated "insiders" would get it. But, that book wasn't written for them.

Of course, we all know that those student/disciples who do "get on with it" 
don't necessarily have to be "initiates." The whole purpose of the VOS is to 
initiate them through direct practice. What better way can there be, in lieu of 
a "live" guru? I'm sure both Blavatsky and Judge were well aware of that, 
since they wrote for posterity -- not particularly for those who were being 
"initiated" directly by them, mouth to ear. 

>I hope you have a sense of humour! 

Yeah... (Nice to know you are joking. ;-) ... This whole discussion, could be 
the root of a few belly laughs for those if us who think the truth is more 
important than who says it or in what manner or language it is said. :-) 

So, right, let's get on with it, and stop haggling over the non sequitur 
details about who did what to whom or changed whatever.

Best wishes,

Leon

>Best wishes.
>
>Tony