Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00168)

By 1925, fifty years after the inauguration of the Movement in New Yord City, the original edition had long been out of print. At that time, the mid-point of the centennial cycle of the Theosophical Movement, The Theosophy Company first made available a facsimile edition of Madame Blavatsky's great work, in the form of a photographic reproduction of the original edition.

Besides the original edition of 1888, the only one authorized by Madame Blavatsky, several other editions of this work have appeared. One of these, the so-called "Third and Revised Edition" of 1893, is marred by many thousands of alterations, some of them trivial, some actual mutilations of the original text. Included in later printings of this so-called "Revised Edition" is a spurious "Third Volume" of the SECRET DOCTRINE, issued in 1897, six years after the death of H.P.Blavatsky. Compiled from miscellaneous papers found among her effects, this volume forms no part of the original SECRET DOCTRINE written by H.P.B.

The "Third and Revised Edition" was followed by another in 1938, this time in six volumes, called the "Adyar Edition". Except for additional indexes, a biographical sketch of the author, various typographical changes, and the inclusion of material attempting to justify publication of the spurious "third volume", this Adyar edition is substantially the asme as the "revised" version.

Still another edition of the SECRET DOCTRINE has been printed from reset type. Except fro gratuitous "corrections" of the author's Sanskrit scholarship,and the addition of irrelevant sectarian matter, this edition is virtually an accurate reproduction of the original text. It exact authenticity, however, cannot be determined without labourious comparison with the original.

This is reprinted from the Publishers' Preface, dated November 17, 1947 of a printed edition of the SECRET DOCTRINE (facsimile of the 1888 edtion) by the THEOSOPHY COMPANY, Los Angeles, CA.

For more details, explore the excellent work done on the subject by Daniel who can provide direct links to it.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "paulobaptista_v" <paulobaptista_v@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
> 
> 1. There is a discussion amongst Portuguese-speaking theosophists about which version of the Secret Doctrine should be used.
> 
> In Portuguese the only available version of the SD is a translation of a version that was edited by Mead and Besant(and I suppose that the same happens in a lot of other idioms). Many accuse this version of having a lot of interpolations, additions and unnecessary corrections. 
> 
> It seems that Adyar has abandoned this version in the late seventies and replaced it with the Boris de Zirkoff version.
> 
> I guess that Boris de Zirkoff made some corrections too, but not so controversial as Besant's.
> 
> There is also the fac-simile version. What I would like to ask you is which one would you recommend. The original version of 1888 or the one edited by Boris de Zirkoff?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Theosophywatch's post of April 12th, has this:
> 
> "The original Third Object was also stated clearly by H. P. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy, Section 3, published in 1889, and reads:
> 
> "To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially."
> 
> Despite the Founder's unambiguous wording, some Theosophical revisionists have chosen to unilaterally remove both the words "`psychic" and "spiritual" from the last Object. Others followed suit, and today a timid, unauthorized and watered-down version is all the public sees.  How could this happen with a subject that pervades every major textbook the Teachers wrote, and hundreds of their original articles?"
> 
> The expression "watered-down version" has a link to:
> 
> https://www.theosophical.org/membership/1043
> 
> I noticed that the branches associated with TS Adyar have this version. The Edmonton Theosophical Society and TS-Point Loma too.
> Only ULT mentions "Psychic" and "spiritual". 
> 
> So I ask you, at time of HPB's death how was this third goal of the TS written? If the ULT keeps the original wording (and I do not know if this is so), who changed it and why? 
> 
> I would like to say that I too agree with Cass. I am not fond of the Besant/Leadbeater literature.
> 
> 
> PB
>