Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00663)

Carlos writes in regards to my posting at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/37395

the following:

===========================================================
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.
==========================================================
Caps added.
Quoted from:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/37401

I refer the interested reader once again to my posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/37395 

How many of these DOCUMENTED changes can be simply ascribed to

UNVOLUNTARY MISTAKES, NOT CONSCIOUS CHANGES ????

For example:

HPB in the original wrote on pp. 74-75:

> It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of Brahma, the
> duration of a Kalpa or a period of 4,320,000,000 years.

The Theosophy Company's edition reads (p. 5):

> It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of Brahma, the
> duration of a Maha-Kalpa or a period of
> 311,040,000,000,000 years.

So were these CHANGES in the Theosophy Company's edition merely 
UNVOLUNTARY mistakes, NOT CONSCIOUS changes????

Or take this example:

The original VOICE reads on p. 82:

> Bodhidharma called them in China---from whence
> the names reached Tibet---the *Tsung-men* (esoteric)
> and *Kiau-men* (exoteric school).

The TC edition changes this passage to read: (p. 25)

> The *Bodhidharma*, Wisdom Religion in China---
> whence the names reached Tibet---called them the
> *Tsung-men* (Esoteric) and *Kiau-men* (Exoteric
> school).

Or one more example:

The original VOICE, p. 87:

> *Upadya* is a spiritual perceptor, a Guru.

The TC editions reads (p. 49):

> *Upadhyaya* is a spiritual preceptor, a Guru.

Does Carlos really believe that this "correction" of the Sanskrit is 
NOTHING BUT an UNVOLUNTARY mistake, a NOT CONSCIOUS change by some 
Theosophy Company editor or worker???

In other words in the three examples given above, is Carlos really 
serious about proposing that there was no conscious intention on the 
part of any editor to change HPB's original text???

Carlos has an interesting hypothesis but does the evidence support 
his speculation?

It should be noted here that as far as I know, Carlos is the first 
ULT associate to propose the above explanation for these "changes".

More on this later.  But I wait for Carlos' feedback first.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc