Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00731)

Richard Robb wrote to me about my thesis on SD Vol. III, 1897:

===================================
An in depth refutation of your thesis must be based on more than 
mere written evidence. If you were familiar with the thrust of the 
SD in toto, the underlying appeal to higher mind and intuition, you 
could see in a flash that the so called 'Volume III' reads like an 
extension of Isis....
==================================

And Ken you comment:

====================================================
While I can see how R. Robb may describe some of the 
material in this volume as from the 'Isis era' and 
agree to some degree, other parts on the Buddha,
The very significant "unpublished Discourse of the Buddha', 
Secret Books of Lam Rim, Nirvana Moksha, Tsong Khapa, 
Doctrine of the Eye and Heart and as well the several 
chapters on  various Adepts, Emperor Julian which fit
into the described `Adept Biography' theme of the 3rd 
volume, really do not appear to be part of the 'Isis era'.
===================================================

Now neither Richard nor you define exactly what you mean
by the references to Isis:

"extension of Isis"

"…material ... from the 'Isis era' "

Now of course I think I get the general thrust of what both 
of you are saying but it is NOT at all clear what particular
material in SD III 1897 falls under this description. 

All of it, I guess by Richard's description.         ??

You seem to look at it differently.

But let's take some specific examples and see if they can be 
described as "material…from the 'Isis era'"

Take for example, the following six articles from SD Vol. III, 1897:

"What the Occultists & Kabalists Have to Say"

"Appollonius of Tyana."

"The Souls of the Star -- Universal Heliolatry"

"The Mystery 'Sun of Initiation'"

"The Trial of the Sun-lnitiate"

"The Hexagon with the Central Point, or the Seventh Key"

Would Richard and/or you describe any of this material as
"an extension of Isis"?

>From Richard's brief words, I would assume that all of this material 
Richard would describe as "an extension of Isis".  

Would you?  

But if either one of you would say yes this is the kind of material
I had in mind, then in reply I would say:

But as of 1886 H.P. Blavatsky had written THIS material and had 
intended it to be an integral part of THE SECRET DOCTRINE.  And 
furthermore this material was in Vol. I manuscript of her great 
work.  This we know from a study of the Wurzburg Manuscript which 
Colonel Olcott received on Dec. 15, 1886.

So whether you or Richard NOW characterize these articles as "Isis"-
like material or not is in a way totally besides the point.

H.P.B. wrote it and it was in the Volume I manuscript of the SD as 
of late 1886-early 1887.

Apparently HPB herself had no problem with the material being part 
of the SD manuscript!!

Such are some of my thoughts on this particular point.

In my next posting I will move on to other points brought up by 
Richard and you.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc