Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00654)

Dear Friends,

According to Daniel Caldwell's  theory, SEE BELOW, Besant SD was authentic. 

But -- what is the reason, then, why both  Boris de Zirkoff  and the Adyar TS did not republish  Besant's "Secret Doctrine", but dropped it, and adopted the original SD edition?  

Please consider that only very strong reasons could have made Adyar TS abandon the edition published by its long-standing President and ES Outer Head, A. Besant.  

It would not make sense to "drop"  Besant's  Third Volume--  politically a sensitive decision --  if it had any real legitimacy. 

It would have been a tremendou irresponsibility on the part of Boris, to abandon a "legitimate" SD edited by Besant/Mead. And we know he was a most skilled, ethical  and responsible editor. 

I am thinking from the institutional viewpoint, in order not to have to discuss it paragraph-by-paragraph, since my time is limited. 

Has  Besant's "wonderful job" (as Daniel seems to describe it) been a victim of some "conspiracy" orquestrated by N. Sri Ram, John Coats and Radha Burnier,  the Adyar presidents since the 1960s ??   

I do not think so. 

And, you see,  Boris' work is universally considered reliable. Dara Eklund, being his long-standing and closest co-worker, can only support Boris' decision to abandon Besant's third volume and come back to the original edition of the SD.  

If people think  Besant's 3rd volume is good, then this means a grave accusation against Boris and Adyar TS presidents. 

That accusation should be made frankly, openly, and in a responsible way. 

Now, we have plenty of examples of Adyar TS editorial irresponsibility in the area of Besant's influence. 

Boris, on the other hand, was not an Adyar TS member, I think, and was a serious, scrupulous, responsible editor.  

Best regards,  Carlos. 




De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Thu, 18 May 2006 16:54:04 -0400

Assunto:Theos-World re deZirkoff 3rd vol SD

> Daniel -
> 
> yes I know this to be correct and Dara, Nicolas, Gomes, Richard Robb can
> verify this I am sure. The content of the material that Besant collected
> (though, I think in reality GRS Mead was the 3rd volume editor ?? I have no
> reference at hand, but what do you think ?) was authentic material left by
> HPB. One theory is that this was going to be re-worked into the 'real' 3rd
> volume, but HPB never got to it. Another theory is that the elements of
> the material for vol. 4 of SD is what we find in the 'Key' and ' Voice',
> that is 'practical occultism'...... I realize that many points that I 'take
> for granted' are apparently not well known. I think it is good that you
> clarify these points so students know the facts and then can draw their own
> conclusions from what really happened.
> 
> Ken
> 
> PS - did you receive my email ? I do not have your current one.
> 
> 
> 
> De: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Para: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Cópia:
> Data: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:56:39 -0000
> Assunto: Theos-World Boris de Zirkoff used Annie Besant's Text
> 
> > It is a fact that can be shown and demonstrated (not just a
> > speculation) that for a considerable portion of the HPB text in
> > Collected Writings, Volume XIV, Boris de Zirkoff HAD TO pay attention
> > to and actually USE Annie Besant's text from SD, Volume III, 1897 for
> > the very simple reason that it [Besant's text] is the only extant
> > text available.
> >
> > Anything said to the contrary is ignoring the real facts.
> >
> > Dara Eklund, Nicholas Weeks, Michael Gomes and other informed
> > persons know the above to be true.
> >
> > Daniel
> 
 
 


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