Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00123)

Nicholas replied:

>>What "alleged typos" in the 1888 SD are these?
>
> Page 6 Vol. 1 has Mandukya Upanishad (2.28).  When I first read this I
> thought -- the Mandukya only has 12 verses, what can 2.28 mean?  Well,
> Gaudapada has famous commentary that is often bound together with the
> Upanishad, maybe 2.28 means the 28th verse of commentary on verse 2 of
> the Mandukya.  Nope. There is nothing like "supreme, and not supreme
> (paravara)" in that 28th verse or anywhere near.  However if one goes to
> the Mundaka Up. II, 2, 8 -- there it is.  Now I suppose one can build up
> much good merit with this detective work.  What why not just consider it
> a mistake in editing, proofing, writing etc. of the SD?

Why not consider it as Mandukya Upanishad (2.28).?  "Mandukya" is different
from "Mundaka".  Should someone correct it?  A scholar/editor/expert could
easily justify such a correction on the (exoteric) basis that Mandukya and
Mundaka are the same.  But they'd be missing the point.

> By the way, Boris de Zirkoff's edition has it correct.

Correct according to who?  What other changes do you feel are "correct"?

A question for everyone. . . .

Which is "correct": Tibet or Thibet?  The difference is a single, lowercase,
letter ("h"); maybe a similar magnitude of difference as between 2.28 and
II, 2, 8 (see Nicholas's example above); a difference which could easily be
overlooked/ignored/"corrected".

Which is "correct": Tibet or Thibet?

Best wishes,
Paul.