Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Theos-World Dallas TenBroeck on the ORIGINALS of Blavatsky's Writings

Expand Messages
  • wry
    Re the brief section of Daniel s message quoted below: I am not knowledgeable on the subject of different editions of Madame Blavatsky s writings, but I do
    Message 1 of 7 , May 3, 2003
      Re the brief section of Daniel's message quoted below: I am not
      knowledgeable on the subject of different editions of Madame Blavatsky's
      writings, but I do have an important comment to make.

      Some people may not realize that one of the common devices used by spiritual
      writers, both ancient and modern, is to convey hidden information by page
      and verse numbering (and also by the use of dates, etc.) Sometimes this
      page, chapter and verse numbering is used in clever ways to refer to
      material concerning the structure of the universe and is given in the form
      of numerology, but often, this device is used, in combination with other
      devices, to cross reference to other material within the same text or even
      in other texts sometimes even texts written by other authors. There is no
      limit, except the boundaries of human imagination and ingenuity, to the
      clever variations that can be used to convey hidden information. This can go
      as far as deliberately misspelling words, giving contradictory information
      in such a way as to catch the eye of the vigilant, such as errors of grammar
      or even inconsistent punctuation (though I personally have never seen this
      last, it is a great idea, and someone, most likely more than one person, has
      certainly used this device already). Each person has his own style of
      conveying a certain kind and quality of information, and he will invariably
      tailor this common (among the ancients) practice in his own unique way, but
      if the person has never received knowledge in this way, if someone does not
      tell him of the existence of this kind of communication, he will never be
      able to learn, and, as with anything, picking up the ability to understand
      this takes practice.

      I have not yet had time to look over Madame Blavatsky's writings with a fine
      toothed comb, but when I do, I will, in some discreet manner, share what, if
      anything I discover, with those who are able to receive it. I have taken the
      time to write this message because I believe some uninformed people, who do
      not understand how various devices that can be used to convey certain
      information that is not for everyone , might construe Daniel's message to be
      a form of nitpicking, which it most emphatically is not. I have seen too
      many people destroy the nuance of key texts by altering them in ways that
      they erroneously perceive to be innocuous, and this is one of my pet peeves.
      Sincerely, Wry

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <inquire@...>
      To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 2:23 PM
      Subject: Theos-World Dallas TenBroeck on the ORIGINALS of Blavatsky's
      Writings

      snip
      > ". . . it is quite clear to me that the T. Co. edition of the text of
      > the VOICE has changes in format, punctuation, numbering, footnotes,
      > and even in the spelling of some of the "foreign" words (as
      > diacritical marks were not used). No argument there."
      >
      > This seemed quite puzzling to me in light of his previous use of the
      > term "verbatim".
      >
      > I was even more "dumbfounded" that Dallas was still recommending to
      > new students and inquirers this Theosophy Company edition in which
      > not only the changes, emendations, corrections and interpolations
      > were to be found but in addition nothing in this TC edition indicated
      > that changes had actually been made. No publisher's or editor's Note
      > telling the reader that corrections, etc. had been made to HPB's
      > original text was to found anywhere in the Theosophy Company
      > edition. In other words, all these changes were UNMARKED to use a
      > word Dallas likes to use.
      >
      > Had not Dallas written before in clear and unmistakable terms on this
      > very point of UMARKED editing as well as to even more important
      > ethical issues?

      snip

      > > Daniel H. Caldwell
      > BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
      > http://blavatskyarchives.com

      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Daniel H. Caldwell
      Wry, you wrote in part: I have taken the time to write this message because I believe some uninformed people, who do not understand how various devices that
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2003
        Wry, you wrote in part:

        "I have taken the time to write this message because I believe some
        uninformed people, who do not understand how various devices that can
        be used to convey certain information that is not for everyone ,
        might construe Daniel's message to be a form of nitpicking, which it
        most emphatically is not."

        Wry, thanks for your comments. From my perspective it is not a
        matter of "nitpicking" but an issue of fairness and consistency.

        Below I post something on the issue of fairness & consistency that I
        wrote on Theos-Talk almost two years ago.
        -------------------------------------------------------------

        Subject: "In U.L.T. I don't have t[o] worry -- the originals are
        available on a reliable basis. . . ." ??????????????

        Dallas writes in part: [My comments follow his comments.]
        ----------------------------------------------------

        "If you wish I can give you as an example the little book that the
        Adyar Theosophical Publishing House issued under H.P.Blavatsky's
        name as PRACTICAL OCCULTISM It is one of the articles she wrote.
        If you have a copy then compare it with the same article you have
        reprinted by the U.L.T. in OCCULTISM OR RAJA-YOGA. The U.L.T.
        is verbatim from H.P.Blavatsky's original article -- remember
        proof reading it myself years ago. The ADYAR version has been
        heavily edited. Then into that soup a creedal article by a
        Brahmin originally printed in Vol. 10 of THEOSOPHIST is
        introduced ( not H.P.Blavatsky at all) -- I made a comparison
        and have a full description of the discrepancies. I sent this to
        the Theosophical Publishing House in Adyar and the H O of the
        Indian Section THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY in Benares -- but they never
        acknowledged it nor did then change their printing."

        "Another discrepancy list with over 43,000 changes is the reprint
        in 1893 of The SECRET DOCTRINE (Vols. I and II) by the
        Theosophical Publishing House in London after the original plates
        were worn and no longer usable. This is easily checked.

        "Vol. III of The SECRET DOCTRINE as edited by A. Besant is a hodge
        podge of unedited MSS that H.P.Blavatsky had in her drawers at
        the time of her death -- it was material intended to go into
        LUCIFER, even some MSS held over from THEOSOPHIST.

        "No, I am not making a case for the continuation of any special
        Body. I am indicating the differences. In U.L.T. I don't have
        t[o] worry -- the originals are available on a reliable basis
        yet=s, I have in many cases proof read and verified them with
        the ORIGINALS. -- and I have done the same thing with the 15 (or
        so) volumes of BLAVATSKY: COLLECTED WORKS. . . .

        "I do not know whether you have the edited or unedited versions
        which came out more recently. If you compare your copies with
        H.P.Blavatsky's originals you will soon know if they have been
        changed. In some cases the changes may be trivial, but in other
        cases as I read, the changes make the original MEANING UNCLEAR.

        "Personally I would rather deal with H.P.Blavatsky's "mistakes"
        than with those created by others who have had the temerity to
        believe they knew better than she did, and had the audacity to
        introduce changes which she did not authorize. Strong language,
        but true if it is applicable."
        -----------------------------------

        DANIEL COMMENTS AS FOLLOWS:

        Dallas, I am totally dumbfounded that you would bring up the above
        items without ALSO commenting on MODERN PANARION (a collection of
        HPB's articles) reprinted by the Theosophy Company and the edition of
        HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE also published by the Theosophy Company.

        Concerning HPB's article PRACTICAL OCCULTISM, Dallas, you write:

        "The U.L.T. is verbatim from H.P.Blavatsky's original article --
        remember proof reading it myself years ago. The ADYAR version has
        been heavily edited."

        Have you compared HPB's articles in MODERN PANARION with H.P.
        Blavatsky's original articles? Dallas, are the articles in MODERN
        PANARION verbatim with HPB's original articles?

        In fact as you should know since I posted comparisons about a year or
        so ago on several theosophical forums, the ULT/THEOSOPHY CO.'s
        reprint of MODERN PANARION has been HEAVILY EDITED.

        And what about the Theosophy Company's version of THE VOICE OF THE
        SILENCE? You know that this version has more than 500 changes
        trivial or otherwise. Do you consider this edition verbatim with the
        original 1889 edition of the VOICE? Before you answer that please
        define what you mean by "verbatim".

        You write concerning the PRACTICAL OCCULTISM article:

        "The U.L.T. [edition] is verbatim from H.P.Blavatsky's original
        article -- remember proof reading it myself years ago. The ADYAR
        version has been heavily edited."

        What do you mean here when you use the word "verbatim"? What do you
        mean by writing that the ADYAR version is not verbatim.

        Keeping in mind your use of the word "verbatim" above, compare the
        Theosophical University Press edition of the VOICE with the ULT's
        version of the VOICE. TUP's edition is verbatim. Can it truly be
        stated that the ULT's version of the VOICE is ALSO verbatim?

        Furthermore, the 500 + changes in the ULT's VOICE are UNMARKED
        CHANGES. In recently published statements of yours, you say you are
        against editions of HPB's works that are edited and the CHANGES are
        UNMARKED. Yet for reasons unknown to me, you prefer to use and quote
        from the ULT's edition of the VOICE with more than 500 + changes that
        are UNMARKED.

        Dallas, you are willing to criticize Adyar for their edition of
        PRACTICAL OCCULTISM and even willing to write to them listing the
        changes and then commenting: "but they never acknowledged it nor did
        then change their printing."

        I'm curious Dallas, have you protested to the Theosophy Company about
        the numerous changes in MODERN PANARION and the ULT's edition of the
        VOICE? Did you send them a list of the changes? Are you asking THE
        THEOSOPHY COMPANY in their next printing of these two titles to
        remove their changes (which HPB did NOT approve) and publish
        facsimiles of HPB's original VOICE and of her original articles?

        So Dallas, is your statement:

        "In U.L.T. I don't have t[o] worry -- the originals are available on
        a reliable basis. . . ."

        REALLY TRUE???????????

        Dallas, why do you continue to criticize the Adyar editions of HPB's
        writings while using the above two mentioned publications by the
        Theosophy Company?

        Daniel H. Caldwell
        BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
        http://blavatskyarchives.com
      • Daniel H. Caldwell
        Wes recently wrote on this forum: . . . when Judge reprinted The Voice of the Silence in New York in 1893, he did some minor editing and rearranged the
        Message 3 of 7 , May 6, 2003
          Wes recently wrote on this forum:

          ". . . when Judge reprinted 'The Voice of the Silence' in New York in
          1893, he did some minor editing and rearranged the footnotes to
          appear on the text pages instead of at the back of the book. So, when
          The Theosophy Company went to re-publish the Voice, there were two
          editions to choose from: Blavatsky's and Judge's. Which one should we
          have published? HPB's 'original' text, or Judge's edition which was a
          bit easier to use? The Theosophy Company editors apparently decided
          to use Judge's, relying on his known skill as an editor."

          But compare the above with what Dallas wrote previously on this forum:

          "In U.L.T. I don't have t[o] worry -- the originals are available on
          a reliable basis. . . . Personally I would rather deal with
          H.P.Blavatsky's 'mistakes' than with those created by others who have
          had the temerity to believe they knew better than she did, and had
          the audacity to introduce changes which she did not authorize. Strong
          language, but true if it is applicable."

          A detailed example of the "minor(?) editing" Judge did can be found
          in the following article:

          "Thin Oblong Squares" pp. 1-4
          http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-2-10.pdf

          As the writer observes later in the same article:

          "Clearly then, this is no mistake [by HPB], no idle phrase or term
          that HPB is using in the Voice. So again, one might ask why [did
          Judge] change it in the Voice Of The Silence, why [did he] remove the
          word 'squares' to leave the phrase 'thin oblongs'?"

          To paraphrase Dallas' "strong language," did Judge have the temerity
          to believe he knew better than she did? Did he have the audacity to
          introduce changes which she did not authorize?

          Probably, when Dallas was using his "strong language", he was
          referring to Besant, Mead or de Zirkoff and their "editing" of
          H.P.B.'s writings. But what's good for the goose is good for the
          gander, right?

          It would appear from the article that H.P. Blavatsky knew exactly
          what she was doing when she wrote "thin oblong squares."

          In this instance Judge's "minor editing" created a new mistake; it
          was not a mistake by HPB!

          Daniel H. Caldwell
          BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
          http://blavatskyarchives.com
        • Daniel H. Caldwell
          See: http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200305/tt00044.html for more comments on the editing of the Theosophy Company s edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE.
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 8, 2005
            See:

            http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200305/tt00044.html

            for more comments on the editing of the
            Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE
            SILENCE.

            Daniel
            http://blavatskyarchives.com
          • Vladimir
            ... Daniel, do you know if The Key to Theosophy , The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled reprinted by the ULT have any discrepancies from the originals?
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 9, 2005
              Saturday, April 9, 2005, 3:02:39 AM, Daniel wrote:

              > See:
              > http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200305/tt00044.html
              > for more comments on the editing of the
              > Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE
              > SILENCE.

              Daniel, do you know if "The Key to Theosophy", "The Secret Doctrine"
              and "Isis Unveiled" reprinted by the ULT have any discrepancies from
              the originals? These are claimed to be facsimiles. Are they indeed?


              Best regards,
              Vladimir
            • M. Sufilight
              I think, that the original cover of The Secret Doctrine has been changed a bit. The proces of printing the book is also different. The paper used as pages is
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 9, 2005
                I think, that the original cover of "The Secret Doctrine" has been changed a
                bit.
                The proces of printing the book is also different. The paper used as pages
                is - as far as I know - also of a different kind.


                M. Sufilight


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Vladimir" <forums@...>
                To: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:10 AM
                Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB on "thin oblong squares" as found in the
                original edition of THE VOICE


                >
                > Saturday, April 9, 2005, 3:02:39 AM, Daniel wrote:
                >
                >> See:
                >> http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200305/tt00044.html
                >> for more comments on the editing of the
                >> Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE
                >> SILENCE.
                >
                > Daniel, do you know if "The Key to Theosophy", "The Secret Doctrine"
                > and "Isis Unveiled" reprinted by the ULT have any discrepancies from
                > the originals? These are claimed to be facsimiles. Are they indeed?
                >
                >
                > Best regards,
                > Vladimir
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Daniel H. Caldwell
                Vladimir, You wrote: Daniel, do you know if The Key to Theosophy , The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled reprinted by the ULT have any discrepancies from
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 9, 2005
                  Vladimir,

                  You wrote:

                  "Daniel, do you know if 'The Key to Theosophy',
                  'The Secret Doctrine' and 'Isis Unveiled' reprinted
                  by the ULT have any discrepancies from the originals?
                  These are claimed to be facsimiles. Are they indeed?"

                  AFAIK, these three reprints are photographic
                  facsimiles of the originals.

                  Daniel
                  http://blavatskyarchives.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.