Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00617)

Bruce, Friends,  

Greetings.

You say:


 "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."

I say: 

Yes. I also reject the third volume.  That's is why I quoted from the Collected Writings an d not from the Third Volume.  Now, someone, think whom, said that the text can also be met at the third volume.  This was not the concern, and once more we forget the CONTENT of my quote from COLLECTED WRITINGS and get into discussing what is the page, and this and that formal details. 

Now --  rejecting the third volume of the SD is NOT saying that every and each text in it is FALSE. 

I hope it is clear: 

1) I did NOT quote SD, AB's third volume.  I quoted BCW.

2) I do NOT consider SD, AB's third volume valid. 

3) That does NOT mean that each paragraph in SD, AB's volume is necessarily false. 

I hope that clarifies... 


Thanks a lot,  Carlos. 
  



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Tue, 16 May 2006 17:34:37 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Re: Quote on Socrates : Your point is?

> This whole question about the 3rd volume ought to be put into some sort
> of context. What HPB originally wrote down on paper and what was
> eventually edited and published may not be identical according to some
> theosophists. Much of what HPB put to paper she did not entirely
> understand. However, she was the best mediator through which the adepts
> could work. The question then becomes did the Adepts overshadow the
> Keightlys during their editing process, and HPB again during any final
> editing. One theosophist along with his students, Rex Dutta, developed
> what he called a Concentric Key method to studying the SD. He found he
> could use page numbers, lines on which words or ideas appeared, etc. to
> develop clues as to what other pages and lines to look to in order to
> get a deeper understanding of the ideas he was studying. In a sense the
> book had been constructed in a way that made everything relevant to its
> study. Now whether this is the case or not, editing the SD has become a
> problem for some students where keys and nuance are lost as the book is
> filtered through someone else's understanding.
> 
> The 3rd volume may or may not have received a similar overshadowing
> during its editing process, possibly making it unlike the other volumes.
> 
> For some students of Theosophy, the 3rd volume is approached more
> cautiously ensuring that its content does not differ in principle from
> the first two volumes and the Student's own intuitions. In the larger
> sense, of course, as the theosophist is not supposed to take anything on
> authority, whether he is reading vols I & II, or vol III, or works by de
> Purucker, he should be using his faculties of discrimination and his
> intuition to try and understand what he is reading and determine its
> veracity. It is the development of the individual student that is the
> bigger issue and if some students want to approach the 3rd volume with
> great caution then so what? There seem to be arguments for this.
> 
> Bruce
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1147800952.300062.11687.sotovento.hst.terra.com.br,6686,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 16/05/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4763
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]