Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00173)

Daniel,

Thank you. I already knew your research about the SD and all the controversy about vol. III.

I suppose that Besant and Mead made some corrections in vols. 1 and 2, haven´t they?

But for the answers I got, I think it is safe to say that the original version is the most consensual.


PB

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel" <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> If you go to the following two webpages you will see links to various
> editions of the SD now online.
> 
> http://secretdoctrine.net
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophypdfs/early_theosophical_publications_authors.htm
> 
> Personally I like to first read the original 1888 text of the SD but the BdeZ ed. is also
> very helpful.  The BdeZ edition supplies missing references, etc. plus the historical introduction, the bibliography and the index make this edition a valuable study aid.
> 
> In reference to the Theosophy Company's comments about the 3rd volume of the SD published in 1897, my own research has led me to a totally different view.  See my article at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/sdiiipt1.htm
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>