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
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. . . ."
Dallas, why do you continue to criticize the Adyar editions of HPB's
writings while using the above two mentioned publications by the
Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES