Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00640)

Daniel
Where was the publishing house located?  Who was in charge?
Pure specualation, but perhaps AB saw that Vol.111 contradicted her held beliefs and came up with the idea of rewriting Vol.1 and 2, rather than making public, truths exposed in Vol.3.

If that is the case, wouldn't like to think of the karma AB is carrying.

Cass

danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:                                  The issue is not what HPB said in the 1888 SD about Volume III.
 We can all read that.
 
 But the ISSUE is what did she do in the remaining years of her life 
 concerning Vol. III?
 
 In February 1890, HPB wrote in a letter to her sister Vera:
 
 "I must put the third volume of the [Secret] Doctrine in order, and
 the fourth -- hardly begun yet, too."
 
 ALMOST A YEAR LATER, we see that HPB had started "putting" the third
 volume in order. See the following accounts by four of her "Inner
 Group" students written AT THE VERY TIME HPB was still alive --- that
 is, BEFORE May 8, 1891. [These students were at the London
 headquarters for example attending HPB's Inner Group meetings in the
 early months of 1891.]
 
 January 7, 1891, Claude Falls Wright wrote:
 
 "H.P.B. has WITHIN THE LAST WEEK OR SO begun to get together the MSS.
 (long ago written) for the Third Volume of The Secret Doctrine; it
 will however, take a good twelve months to prepare for publication."
 caps added.
 
 Now this comment by Wright was published in THE PATH February 1891.
 So it was PUBLIC as of sometime in Feb. 1891 and I would suppose that
 even HPB herself probably read the statement since she read THE PATH
 magazine.
 
 February 1891, Alice Leighton Cleather wrote:
 
 "H.P.B. has already started on Vol. III."
 
 Read Cleather's comment in the context of what Wright wrote.
 
 February 18, 1891, Countess Wachtmeister wrote in a letter to W. Q.
 Judge:
 
 "When Volume 3 [of The Secret Doctrine] comes out this summer I
 expect there will be a fresh demand for the earlier [two] volumes."
 
 This comment by Wachtmeister shows that HPB was working on the Vol.
 III manuscript as Wright and Cleather indicate. The Countess had the
 understanding that HPB was planning to publish the third volume.
 
 May 4, 1891, Annie Besant gave testimony:
 
 "There is one other work of hers [HPB's], which I have seen in
 manuscript, still unpublished; a third volume of "The Secret
 Doctrine" which is NOW BEING GOT READY FOR THE PRESS under my own
 eyes. Madame Blavatsky has also in preparation a glossary of Sanscrit
 and Eastern tongues; those are both in preparation; one of them is
 already in type and the other is nearly ready for type." caps added.
 
 We know from other sources that HPB was working also on the GLOSSARY
 at this time just as Mrs. Besant said.
 
 So in the 4 months BEFORE HPB's death, according to the
 testimony given by the above four students of HPB, we see that HPB
 was working on this Volume III manuscript and apparently with the
 intent to publish it.
 
 And following her death, in October 1891, we see two more of HPB's
 students stating the following about the Vol. III manuscript.
 
 October 1891, Isabel Cooper-Oakley wrote:
 
 "The H.P.B. Press...is developing into a regular printing office....A
 new edition of The Secret Doctrine is to lead the van, and last but
 not least the third volume is to be published."
 
 October 29, 1891, Dr. Archibald Keightley wrote in a letter to
 Bertram Keightley:
 
 "There is some talk of entirely reprinting Secret Doctrine [Volumes I
 and II] and of correcting errors when the Third Volume is issued."
 
 So as of Oct. 1891, even after HPB's death, the plan apparently was
 still to publish the third volume.
 
 Surely all of this testimony shows what HPB was doing in 1891 on
 Volume III of the SD. Apparently she had decided to at the very
 least work more on Volume III and it would appear from the testimony
 that her intent was to actually publish Volume III.
 
 Notice that all of this testimony is from 1891. Not from years later
 after the Judge case, after the split of the TS, after other
 controversies had arisen, and the testimony is not from what someone
 remembered years or decades later.
 
 I see no good reason to doubt the 1891 testimony of the above
 individuals. If anyone else does, I would like to know their
 actual detailed reasoning and thinking.
 
 For more on Volume III of the SD, see:
 
 http://blavatskyarchives.com/sdiiipt1.htm
 
 Daniel
 http://hpb.cc
 
 
     
                       

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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