Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00829)

Carlos writes in part:

======================================================

That may explain the DISAPPEARANCE of volumes III and IV. . . .

As to the UTTER LACK of legitimacy of the volume III as published by 
Annie Besant 1898, is it amply demonstrated by Boris de Zirkoff in 
his introduction to the Volume XIV of HPB's "Collected Writings"....

These were texts NOT ORIGINALLY DESTINED to belong to "The Secret 
Doctrine". . . .

======================================================
Caps added.

Unfortunately, the above statements of Carlos show an almost total
lack of understanding regarding Volume III.

I go over much of this in great detail in my essay to be found at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/sdiiipt1.htm

In regards to Carlos' remarks about "Boris de Zirkoff in his 
introduction to the Volume XIV of HPB's 'Collected Writings'", 
although Mr. de Zirkoff's Introduction contains a great deal of 
valuable material, unfortunately there are a good number of 
misstatements and certain confusions in Boris' Introduction.  
Unfortunately Mr. de Zirkoff's Historical Introduction to the Adyar 
edition of the SD ALSO contains certain confusions concerning the 
writing of the SD in 1886-1887 and about Volume III.

[Although all students of HPB's writings owe Mr. de Zirkoff a great 
deal of gratitude for all of his hard work covering many decades on 
the compiling, etc. of HPB's writings, the fact remains that there 
are various statements by Mr. de Zirkoff on a variety of subjects 
which contain mistakes and confusion.  I refer the reader to two 
examples of this that I have documented and placed on the web:

(1) Some Observations on the Claims made by Boris de Zirkoff and 
others about Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY
http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/199901/tt00107.html

(2) Concerning his statements about the E.S. Instructions
http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbes1extract.htm  

I interject here that I am very mindful of the fact that we stand on 
the shoulders of those whom we criticize, that is, their work helps 
us maybe to see better and farther and without their intitial effort 
we would possibly not have a better undertstanding, etc.]

A careful reading of my essay on Vol. III of the SD will help to 
clarify some of this confusion but I see that I need to write a 
second essay going over all of Mr. de Zirkoff's material and showing 
chapter and line where the confusion is.

Concerning Carlos' statement which reads:

"These [that is, the material in Volume III excluding the E.S. 
material???] were texts NOT ORIGINALLY DESTINED to belong to 'The 
Secret Doctrine'." 

It can be documented thru the Wurzburg manauscript and other 
material that much of the material in the published 1897 3rd volume 
was in HPB's original 1886 manuscript of Volume I of the Secret 
Doctrine.

So contrary to what Carlos is stating, it can be shown that much of 
the text of the 1897 3rd volume was definitely ORIGINALLY DESTINED 
to belong to THE SECRET DOCTRINE.

The Wurzburg manuscript by itself clearly shows this is the case.

As time permits in the next year, I will try to enlarge and expand 
my original essay to show even more of this. 

Of course, I am not really surprised to find such statements by 
Carlos since apparently he doesn't even know what the basic thesis 
of my essay is about.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc