Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00094)

Tony, Daniel, et al,

Very poetic... But, the conclusions are, essentially, nonsense. 

The essence of the Voice of the silence is solely in its transliteration of 
the instructions from the Book of the Golden Precepts that HPB supposedly 
memorized "by heart" and had to translate into her version of English -- which she 
admitted was a faulty language for transmitting the nuances of mystical 
teachings. None of that "essence" is in the introductory words that went before 
that translation. Those preliminary words are just facts (true or false) and/or 
opinions.

IMHO, what's written in a preface, preamble, dedication, or title page of any 
book (which could be considered author's blurbs :-) is generally of no 
consequence with respect to the underlying "poetry" or essential meaning of the work 
that follows, and has no relationship to the HEART or "fragrance" of the 
instructions therein. So, let's take it from there. 

Accordingly, my advice to all nit pickers who agonize over the details of 
history and structure, rather than content -- is to wake up and smell the 
roses... And then prove to or show us that studying and practicing one transcription 
of HPB's English translation of any original Senzar/Sanscrit/Tibetan 
instructional text or another (given us, in all cases, by or through a recognized and 
respected Adept or Master) -- makes any difference in what we each can get out 
of its direct instructions (depending on our own "individual" level of 
perception, comprehension and conscience, as well as how well we know how to read "in 
and around the words and between the lines")? 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference. So, let's stop this making 
of mountains out of mole hills and endless poking, either directly or by 
innuendo, at ULT and WQJ -- apparently, by those who have their own fixed loyalties 
and opinions about organizations and historical personalities, and who would 
rather argue about them than talk about the real essence of theosophical 
teachings, or the practical work toward fulfilling the objects and purposes of the 
Theosophical Movement. 

To avoid such arguments and possible misleadings, is why I have chosen to 
trust only those "original" books on theosophy or mystical teachings that come 
through those I recognize (through their fruits) as Adepts or Masters. 
Therefore all English translations of the Voice of the Silence, either by HPB or by 
Judge are acceptable. 

To set the record straight, I do not recognize any other theosophists who 
came after the original works of HPB [and her "collaborator WQJ] and "doctored" 
her writings, or claimed to have channeled new versions of the SD, as being on 
the same level as such Adepts. As for others, whatever choices of books they 
make for such study is strictly up to them. (But if they choose Besant and 
Leadbeater over Blavatsky and Judge, I feel sorry for them. :-)

Is that enough said on this subject? If so, let's kill it! (Although I'm 
not so sure Daniel will discontinue his endless cross examinations of everyone's 
defense of ULT and WQJ and their counter arguments to his opinions about him 
and it. :-)

LHM 

In a message dated 10/07/03 10:17:38 AM, alpha@dircon.co.uk writes:

THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE


FRAGRANCE:


Some see in "The Voice of the Silence" that it is of a "poetic" nature.


Poetic, in the sense that it is used on page 550, vol. I of "The Secret

Doctrine" in relation to the caduceus: "Verily the wonderful powers of the

magic caduceus were sung by all the ancient poets, with a very good reason

for those who understood the secret meaning." ALL the ancient poets (not

99.99999% of them).


Poetry has fragrance. Song and sound have fragrance.


Many of us use your questioning way Dallas, but if we start altering things

we also effect fragrances we may not be aware of. I thought you had the

same view Dallas, and that that was why the Thosophy Company produce a

facsimile of "The Secret Doctrine."


The text of "The Voice of the Silence" starts (page 1):


FRAGMENT I.


[Short thickisk black line]


"THESE instuctions are for those ignorant of the lower IDDHI (1).


[Long thinner black line]


He who would hear the voice of *Nada* (2), "the Soundless Sound," and

comprehend it, has to learn the nature of *Dharana* (3). (accents over the

first and last "a".


The lines, the italics (Nada and Dharana) and the accents are left out in

the version by Wm Q Judge.


The italics certainly make a difference, but the lines surely makes a huge

difference? To use your questioning approach. Why is that 2nd line there?

If you only study the version by Wm Q Judge you will never have known that

line was there. Why did Wm Q Judge see fit to take that line out? Was he

looking at the words, was he smelling the fragrance, was he singing in

ONENESS (Universal Brotherhood) as ALL the ancient poets, when he made that

change? Is H.P.B. one of those ancient poets? Why did H.P.B. put "Nada"

in italics. Why did Wm Q Judge decide it was better not to put it in

italics? Aren't these questions we should be asking too?


In the original ("The Voice of the Silence")(not in Wm Q Judge's) page 1

ends!


"The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real.


Let the Disciple slay the Slayer."


Doesn't altering "The Voice of the Silence" slay the Real. Slay its unique

poetic fragrance?


And let us remember that "The Voice of the Silence" was not translated by H.

P. Blavatsky, but rather "H.P.B." "H P.B. to H P. Blavatsky with no

(underlined) kind regards." being the inscription in her own copy.

Best wishes

Tony.


-----Original Message-----

From: W. Dallas TenBreoeck [mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net]

Sent: 7 October 2003 11:14 am

To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: Theos-World Dallas, please consider Peter M.'s Relevant

Question



Oct 7 2003


Re VOICE OF THE SILENCE