Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00657)

Daniel,  

Thanks.  

I finaly took a few minutes to read some of your allegations about volumes published by "The Theosophy Company". 

An interesting viewpoint, no doubt. 

It seems you failed to detect content changes, though.  

You write, or you quote: 

"There are 665 points of differences, of one sort  or another, viz. (...) "These. . . . consist of changes in punctuation, italics,  quotation marks, capitals, spelling of Sanskrit words,  omission of the important diacritical marks over the vowels,  and OTHERS. This averages one change to every three or 
four lines." 

As you know, editorial mistakes are common. If you work with volunteer, untrained people, risks rise.  I have NOT checked this critical examination of this "Theosophy Co."  edition,  and it may be WRONG. 

Yet, I remind you of the fact that in the very first paragraph of "Isis Unveiled" there is a gross proofreading mistake.

Such an important editorial mistake was publiclly identified in a prestigious place of our literature, and explained.  So far, I see no corrections about that. 
This is but a example.  While preparing the Brazilian of the "Mahatma Letters", I identified some 50 editorial  mistakes, some of them serious, in the 
Chronological Edition of the ML (Philippines TPH).  There might be more than those I saw. None of them made on purpose, and Vic Hao Shin's work is just excellent anyway. I am in favour of the Chronological Edition.

Examples could go on for ever, but these are all involuntary mistakes.

Tampering is something different, and tampering I was talking about.

Tampering is changing thing on purpose to suit one's own interests, often unconfessed. 

Nearly all supposed editorial mistakes you talk about referring to Theosophy Company are not tampering.  If they really occurred, they are unvoluntary mistakes, not conscious changes. 

Except, of course, differences in transliteration and the like, of which, by the way, Boris de Zirkoff is also accused in his "Collected Writings",  etc.

I am not questioning the TPH for its editorial mistakes in profreading, wording or transliteration.  I am questioning its tampering with the meaning of the texts. 

Such a tampering was openly discussed by Adyar leaders from all over the world, in the 1960s.  A transcription of such a meeting was published in "The THeosophist" by that time and I wrote about that here in Theos-talk.  My text contains most significant evidences of conscious Tampering in Adyar TS, and FOHAT magazine has just published it.  

N. Sri Ram and Radha Burnier (his daughter) were openly AGAINST such tampering, which was fervently defended by... the Adyar TS in the USA. (Nothing new under the sun.)  Take a look at FOHAT. 

I hope you can see the wide difference between tampering, on one hand,  and making mistakes in proofreading,  or having editorial decisions on transliteration that someone else classifies as "alterations" and "mistakes", 
on the other hand.  


Regards,  Carlos. 


  
De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:15:45 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Tampering (?) with HPB's "The Voice of the Silence"

> Earlier this year, Mr. Carlos Aveline wrote to Betty Bland about
> Adyar's "tampering" with HPB's THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> 
> Students of HPB's writings interested in the above subject may also
> be interested in the following example:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Tampering (?) with HPB's "The Voice of the Silence"
> 
> by Daniel H. Caldwell
> 


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