Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00110)

Daniel,

Why don't you clarify that it was not your criticisms that I said was 'a lot 
of nit picking baloney' and a "tempest in a teapot" -- but the making of a 
mountain out of a molehill about minor editing in the preface of the VOS, along 
with, by reflection, a heavy handed attack on WQJ, and by association, ULT and 
its members in a long string of previous correspondence -- that had nothing 
to do with the "HEART" of the VOS text itself -- which was the primary subject 
of this particular discussion -- In which I made my counter arguments 
perfectly clear.  

Now, after all your barrage of lawyerly responses with its personalized 
pointed and leading questions -- I'm more and more convinced that this whole 
brouhaha stems from a personal pique, by you and a few other "disgruntled" TS 
"organizationalists" against ULT, its active associates and their defense of the 
fundamental "undoctored" writings of HPB (as the primary valid basis of 
theosophical study); WQJ, due to the conflict between him and the (Besant/Leadbeater et 
al) cult of the TS, as well as the universal popularity of his (HPB approved) 
books and articles (vide; The Ocean of Theosophy, The Epitome of Theosophy, 
etc.) both in and outside of theosophical circles; plus the defection of Robert 
Crosby from the TS to found the United Lodge of Theosophists, along with the 
popularity of his (Vide; The Friendly Philosopher) and other books and 
articles written over the past 30-40 years by other ULT associates, such asWadia 
(who also resigned from the TS), Cranston, Head, Williams, etc., (Vide; On 
reincarnation, HPB biography, theosophical philosophy, etc.) -- which you and the TS 
refuse to publish, sell, or acknowledge (and which, in the past many years, 
has probably sucked more members out of the TS than they have managed to 
recruit. :-) And, to add another coal to the fire, The Theosophy Company and its 
printing and publication of Theosophy magazine and the facsimile editions of the 
SD. If all this doesn't look like a vendetta against ULT, its associates, both
individually and collectively, as well as its founders and mentors (by both 
omission and directly) -- then, what is it? </:-]>

Leon  
---------------------------------
In a message dated 10/07/03 2:39:41 AM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>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

---------------------------------------------------------
>
>