Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00694)

"Though reconstruction of Besant much differed frim an original 
Blavatsky text which was discovered, Besant emphasized that it is her 
interpolation."

That is enough for me!



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:39 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Secret Doctrine Vol.3


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" 
  <global-theosophy@...> wrote:

  > "Nevertheless, some students of HPB's writings have voiced concern
  > about how much Besant and her assistants may have edited the
  > manuscript. 

  I don't think that it was edited substantionally. Besant clearly 
  marked her own interpolation where were missing pages which were found 
  later. Though reconstruction of Besant much differed frim an original 
  Blavatsky text which was discovered, Besant emphasized that it is her 
  interpolation.
  The second point is that most of the students study SD3 by BCW. While 
  if we look to an original edition, we may find there comments by 
  Besant where she expresses some disagrement with the text. 
  Nevertheless, she didn't dare to change it according to her likes.
  Here follows her note to the famous sections on Buddha:

  "It is with some hesitation that I include the following Sections in 
  the Secret Doctrine. Together with some most suggestive thought, they 
  contain very numerous errors of fact, and many statements based on 
  exoteric writings, not on esoteric knowledge. They were given into my 
  hands to publish, as part of the Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine, 
  and I therefore do not feel justified in coming between the author and 
  the public, either by altering the statements, to make them consistent 
  with fact, or by suppressing the Sections. She says she is acting 
  entirely on her own authority, and it will be obvious to any 
  instructed reader that she makes-possibly deliberately-many statements 
  so confused that they are merely blinds, and other statements-probably 
  inadvertently-that are nothing more than the exoteric 
  misunderstandings of esoteric truths. The reader must here, as 
  everywhere, use his own judgment, but, feeling bound to publish these 
  Sections, I cannot let them go to the public without a warning that 
  much in them is certainly erroneous."



   

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