Re: Question about Eliphas Levi's "The paradoxes of the highest science"
Apr 13, 2012 02:53 PM
Thank you for your help.
I got some other replies in my e-mail and there is no doubt that the translator was A.O. Hume.
I exchanged e-mails with Morten about this, and since I consider his comments to be of importance I asked him if I could post those comments here. He agreed so here it goes:
Try page 257-258 - BCW, Vol. VI. and the later pages where HPB's notes oppose parts of the content in the book - this should be closer to the truth...
Here we go:
"It would not be unprofitable here to quote the sentiments of an Eminent Occultist, published in the Paradoxes of the Highest Science:--*
* [Under this title, Allan O. Hume published in 1883 certain heretofore unpublished manuscripts of the late Éliphas Lévi (pseud. of the Abbé Alphonse Louis Constant) which had been sent to him by Master K. H. (See Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, p. 134). As stated by the Master himself, he appended his own comments to various portions of the manuscript. While at first it was to be sent to A. P. Sinnett, it was actually sent to Hume (Ibid., p. 144, where "our 'Jacko' friend" stands for A. O. Hume). Hume translated the original French manuscript into English, wrote a Preface to it and added some notes of his own, signed "Translator." The Master's comments are signed "E. O.," which stands for "Eminent Occultist," according to Hume's statement in the Preface.
There exists in the Archives of The Theosophical Society at Adyar a worn out copy of the Paradoxes of the Highest Science, published as the second of a planned series of Theosophical Miscellanies (Calcutta: Calcutta Central Press Co., Ltd., 5 Council House St., 1883). It contains some marginal notes of H. P. B.'s, although probably in Miss Francesca Arundale's handwriting, presumably copied by her from H. P. B.'s own notes in some other copy of the same booklet.
For a better understanding of H. P. B.'s notations, it might be pointed out that A. O. Hume had acquired a notorious reputation in the early days of the Movement, because of his skepticism regarding the Masters, H. P. B., and the Society in general. Apparently he could never resist a side-thrust in their direction when he took pen in hand. Neither could H. P. B. in her manuscript notes resist the opportunity to thrust back at him in two places.
The following are H. P. B.'s notations in the above-mentioned booklet. The double page references are to the original Calcutta edition of 1883, and the 2nd edition published by C. Jinarâjadâsa (Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, 1922), the latter between parentheses.
Page 1(v). Immediately after the words "(By the Translator)," H. P. B. wrote:
A. O. Hume.
Page 2(vii). To the right of the letters "E. O.," she placed the mark #, and at the bottom of the page wrote:
# K. H."
I then replied Morten asking:
>From what source did he get this information? From the Jewish books? Is it clear that HPB supported this version of the story of Jesus Christ?
Try to consider this...
A. O. Hume was seeking his own version of Adwaita Vedanta and had his guru in Almora in India. (Blavatsky's letters to A. P. Sinnett, p.43 + 82 - http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Letters%20of%20HPB.htm and elsewhere. )
Now Hume might have gotten his info from the below...or elsewhere...
A WORD WITH "ZERO."
(The Theosophist, March 1883)
And from the above article by reading Epiphanius, Irenaeus and other ancient scriptures so to verfy the content of this article.
Perhaps also Gerald Massey's "Natural Genesis" Vol. I+II, published 1883, Vol. II, p 490 as an example.
Maybe some of Master KH's - early and unpublished - letters to Hume made Hume realise all this by going throught the relevant references of ancient scriptures in this regard, Talmud being one of them which mentiones Lydda/Lod, and Nicholas Donin 1200th cent. another. There are other options to why Hume wrote like he did....
Hume was despite this also clairvoyant to a certain degree, although no adept in the 1880'ties.
And do also consider this first sentence by Hume and how it was formulated:
"I may explain that some of the most eminent occultists hold the Gospel Christ to be an ideal, based upon a Jesus who lived a considerable time before anno Domini."
I think Hume thereby covered his ground by not openly endorsing the Occult point of view.
--- In email@example.com, "Mark Jaqua" <hozro@...> wrote:
> PB: According to de Zirkoff, it looks like A.O. Hume translated it into English from an original French copy from KH (which originally was supposed to go to Sinnett (p. 258). There is a whole bunch on it pp 257-60, vol. 6, Blavatsky Collected Writings (these are worth a year of one's life, at least.) It seems Blavatsky's friend Mary Gebhard also had an original copy (BCW, p. 494, Zirkoff's Levi short bio.) 'Says both E.O. and Blavatsky made notes to the publication.
> - jake j.
> >Question about Eliphas Levi's "The paradoxes of the highest science"
> Posted by: "paulobaptista_v" paulobaptista_v@... paulobaptista_v
> Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 3:55 pm ((PDT))
> >Dear friends,
> >I am writing a text for my blog about Eliphas Levi's version of the life of Jesus Christ (which came from Jewish sources).
> >The TS edited a book in 1883 called "The paradoxes of the highest science" penned by the French occultist.
> >There are some notes signed by E.O (Eminent Occultist) who is believed to be KH. What I want to ask is if the translator is HPB.
> >For instance is note 53, E.O made the first statement "But he preached it a century before his birth.--E. O.". The text that follows was written by HPB?
> >Thank you in advance for your help.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application