Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00606)

Carlos,

In your posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33473

you wrote:

"So what? Your point is? Nobody said A. Besant's SD is entirely 
false."

Well, there are some students of Blavatsky who ENTIRELY reject 
this Third Volume and who will NOT use any material from the 
volume since they believe Mrs. Besant mutilated the text.  

As one student once said to me, how do you know what is HPB's and 
what Mrs. Besant added, changed or deleted from HPB's text.

So Carlos I'm glad that you apparently do not accept this extreme 
view and you see worth in the HPB material in this third volume.

This is one of my points.

Now to another point.

In my previous posting on this subject, I quoted the publisher's 
note from the Theosophy Company that said that the Third Volume of 
the SD that was published in 1897 "forms no part of the original 
SECRET DOCTRINE written by H.P.B."

Notice the words:  NO PART

Now I ask:  how does the writer of this statement know this?  
Unfortunately, the writer does not give us any details whatsoever so 
we are not in a position to understand the reasoning or the evidence 
that may have led him to that conclusion.

But focusing on NO PART, I would like to take the "part" that you 
quote, that is, the HPB quote on Socrates, look at that part and see 
if we can determine if that material was actually "A PART of the 
original SECRET DOCTRINE written by H.P.B."

I will do this in my next posting.

Daniel
Blavatsky Study Center
http://blavatskyarchives.com
http://blavatskystudycenter.org
http://theosophy.info