Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00510)

Frank:
"So many errors!"

Daniel:
Can you give a few examples??


I've read the book when it came out, but out of memory I give you a few
examples which I recall:

On p. 551: "ether or aether"
But for HPB these two terms describe different conditions: "Their AEther was
the Akasa of the Hindus; the Ether accepted in physics is but one of its
subdivisions", SD I:343
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-2-04.htm

On p. 296 HPB's alleged birth place is spelled in the letter and in the
note: "Ekaterinoslaw", but on
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/colebunve.htm it is cited as "Ekaterislav",
and on p. 295 the editor of the Banner spells it "Ekaterinoslar".

On p. 298 "Professor H." is mentioned, the Endnote 1 on p. 299 lets him
unidentified, but every student of HPB's writing anyone nteresseted in
history knows that it is of course the famous German Professor von Helmholtz
(B:CW VIII:458), a biography under
http://30.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HE/HELMHOLTZ.htm.

Daniel:
And why is it a "current example"
of the "degenerated, low spiritual and intellectual
condition of the Theosophical Movement"?

Those are quite harsh words. Can you give
us some examples to show readers how you
are assessing this book?

Frank:
They may be harsh, but to me they are true and I'm not running for the Most
Harmonious Theosophist of the Year Award.
It is good to have these book, as I now can read HPB's letters contained in
it, but I know there are inaccuracies as mentioned in Deveney's good review,
with which I fully agree.
So the book is better than nothing, but it is of course not the best edition
possible (I too do also not understand why HPB's astrological signs are left 
of in on letter).
Belittle other reseachers and the make believe attitude of the editor that 
he has found himself all sources is to me not a sign of a high intellectual 
and spiritual condition.
And that fits well with the general condition of the TM, at least in my 
country, where most of the officials are proud since years to destroy as 
much unique documents as possible etc.
Perhaps it is better in other countries, but I doubt it.

Daniel:
And if you had been the editor, how would
you have made it different?

All Deveney and I have criticized.
I would like to compare John Algeo notes with that of John Cooper.
Perhaps someone some day emails Cooper's comments to theos-talk and one 
would be able to print them out and insert them in to the book.


Daniel:
Also please tell us what in the forword
made you write:

"... this childish behavior to belittle other
reseachers!"


I mean the assertion that John Cooper's notes very too much incorrect to 
print them. It seems this is just an assertion of the editor to justify his 
strange policy with the publication of this book, as no rationale of this 
assertion is made. And why should John Algeo's notes be regarded as more 
accurate?
Frank