Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00375)

Dear Friends,

According to Daniel Caldwell's  theory, 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  Cardoso Aveline. 


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