Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00169)

On the following page we find the two volumes of the Second Edition of the Secret Doctrine, published by Blavatsky in 1888, in PDF format.
http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophypdfs/early_theosophical_publications.htm
This is as far as I know the original edition and not different from the first Edition - except that the PDF's are without the actual cover of the volumes.

One merely need to translate this edition into another language so to be of service to ones countries with regard to this book.
The questions is wether one find it an effort worth while. 
- A mutual translation project - even among theosophical organizations - could be an interesting idea to promote.





M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulobaptista_v 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:07 PM
  Subject: [!! SPAM] theos-talk Questions about the SD and the 3rd object of the TS


    
  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



  

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