Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00818)

Carlos,

I wrote a posting which can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/37553

In reply to my posting, you now write to me:

=========================================================
What is, then the allegation you are trying to make?

You make a lot of inuendos, rhetorical questions, but is there any 
real stuff in what you have to say?
========================================================

Let me briefly set the stage for my answers to your questions.

At the end of their Preface to THE SECRET DOCTRINE, the Theosophy 
Company publishers make an important statement:

"With the present printing of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, The Theosophy
Company continues ITS FUNCTION of providing students and inquirers
with UNALTERED editions of the ORIGINAL literature of the
Theosophical Movement...." [caps added to the words "its 
function", "altered" and "original".]

The gist of this statement has been repeatd thousands of times by ULT 
associates over the years.

In the archives of Theos-Talk there are probably dozens of statements 
by the late Dallas Tenbroeck repeating this same theme.  

In my correspondence and discussions with ULT associates especially 
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this was a constant refrain by 
them.

Now in the late 1980s, Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. first told me that 
the Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE was 
NOT "a perfect facsimile of the original [1889] edition."  He said, 
that in fact, hundreds of changes and alterations had been made to 
the text of the TC edition.  Later I was able to find Dr. H.N. 
Stoke's article which detailed the same observations that Walter had 
given me.

Anyway I remember at this time writing to several ULT associates 
repeating what I had learned from both Carrithers and Stokes.  The 
replies I received at that time were very disappointing.  One 
associate assured me that there were NO such changes as "alleged" by 
Carrithers (and Stokes).  The other correspondents were more vauge 
and elusive in their replies.

Unfortunately, at the time I did not own a copy of HPB's original 
1889 edition so I could not do a comparison for myself.

Yet I did own a copy of the Theosophical University Press' edition of 
THE VOICE.  Although this edition was not a photographic facsimile of 
HPB's original 1889 edition, it was stated on the title page to be "A 
Verbatim Reproduction of the original edition of 1889."

So I started comparing this TUP edition with the Theosophy Company's 
edition.

It didn't take long to discover that there were dozens ... and scores 
and then ... hundreds of changes and alterations between these two 
editions.

Again I pointed this finding out to some of my ULT correspondents.  
Again most of them did not reply.  Those that did either were puzzled 
or still maintained that the Theosophy Company's edition was faithful 
to HPB's original.  One ULT associate even claimed that the TUP 
edition was the one that had hundreds of changes and was not verbatim 
with HPB's original.

The next obvious step for me was to find an original copy of HPB's 
1889 VOICE OF THE SILENCE.  This took some time but I found a copy.

What I discovered was that what Carrithers and Stokes had stated was 
correct, that is, that there were 100s of alterations and changes in 
the Theosophy Company's edition of the VOICE when compared to HPB's 
1889 edition.  I also discovered that the Theosophical University 
Press edition was indeed faithful to HPB's original, that indeed it 
was as stated on the title page "A Verbatim Reproduction of the 
original edition of 1889."

When I started reporting some of these findings on the WWW in the 
1990s, that is when certain ULT associates started viewing me as 
a "trouble-maker".

Silly me...I had originally thought they would be glad to know the 
true facts!!

So Carlos, to end this Part 1 and before I write more in Part 2 in 
direct answer to your questions that started this posting, I ask you 
the following question:

Do you acknowledge and admit that the Theosophy Company's edition of 
HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE has hundreds of changes and alterations 
that do not appear in the original edition of HPB's VOICE???

Or in other words:

Are there hundreds of alterations and changes in the TC edition as 
compared to HPB's 1889 edition?

A "yes" or "no" will suffice at this stage.

Later we can discuss what those "changes" and "alterations" signify.

In order to refresh your memory, I append BELOW some of those 
documented changes.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc

--------------------------------------------------------------

Below are examples of some of these changes. Asterisks
indicate italics.

On page vii of the original Preface, HPB wrote:

"The original *Precepts* are engraved on thin
oblong squares; copies very often on discs."

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

"The original *Precepts* are engraved on thin
oblongs; copies very often on discs."

Notice the deletion of the word "squares." Also the
editorial change of "oblong" into "oblongs."

On p. 73 of the original VOICE, HPB wrote:

> The "great Master" is the term used by *lanoos* or
> chelas to indicate one's "Higher Self."

The Theosophy Company's edition reads (p. 3):

> The "great Master" is the term used by
> Lanoos or Chelas to indicate the HIGHER SELF.

As one can see, there are several changes in this one sentence
including deleting a word and adding another.


Again, 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.

The Theosophy Company's edition has apparently "corrected"
and "improved" HPB's original.


Again, the 1889 edition, p. 78:

> These mystic sounds or the melody heard by the ascetic . . . .

The TC edition changes this to (p. 19):

> The mystic sounds, or the melody, heard by the ascetic . . . .

"These" has been changed to "The"

Is this an "improvement"? Is this a "correction"?


Again, 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.

Is this another "correction" of HPB's Sanskrit scholarship?


Once, again, 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).


On pp. x-xi of the original, one finds the following:

> . . . (*Bhagavatgita II*. 70). . . .

> . . . (*Bhagavatgita II*. 27). . . .

The TC edition (p. iv) changes the spelling of this Hindu text and
deletes the numbers "70" and "27".