Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00182)

To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially."
> >

Cass: No I don't have a problem with this, I do not believe she is referring to 'mediumship' but the laws of nature and if mediumship was part of these laws, then no reason not to discuss how things work and to warn against prioritising it.
Cass



>________________________________
> From: paulobaptista_v <paulobaptista_v@EfePAiEeSN0PAf2WAGbZ5kB8cpO_GVNhbfY2WNloBp8RrXYd8CuPYiT6QqBY6YWz19cQvsTxv7aWUQDwBuDeKPjX.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 4:01 AM
>Subject: Re: theos-talk Questions about the SD and the 3rd object of the TS
> 
>
>Â 
>Cass,
>
>I am aware of that. I just wanted to know which one of the versions (BdeZ versus the original) is better.
>
>Do you have an opinion about the differences in the wording concerning the third object of the TS?
>
>PB
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>>
>> The original Secret Doctrine, unedited is available online, free.
>> Cass
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >________________________________
>> > From: paulobaptista_v <paulobaptista_v@...>
>> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2012 10:07 PM
>> >Subject: theos-talk Questions about the SD and the 3rd object of the TS
>> > 
>> >
>> >ÃÂ 
>> >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]
>>
>
>
> 
>
>

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