Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00027)

As an addendum to my earlier e-mail on this thread; The following quotes 
(along with my interspersed comments) perfectly confirms the claim that the 
editor of HPB's original translation of the Voice of the Silence, using the 
good judgment of a skilled writer of English as a native language, as well as 
a Sanskrit scholar of impeccable credentials, made no editorial changes that 
in any way distorted or modified the original meaning of the text as 
translated by HPB.  In fact, the changes made were perfectly in accord with 
good editorial practice, and in many cases greatly clarified the meaning of 
the passages to those familiar with modern usage of the English language.  

It should be noted that HPB made no claims as to the infallibility of her 
writings or the perfection of her knowledge of both English or Sanskrit... 
And, specifically, disclaimed, in the SD, any authority on esoteric matters.  
She was, as she said, simply a messenger that transmitted, as best she could 
under the circumstances, the teachings given her by the Masters.  As such, 
and being only human, she was bound to make a number of inadvertent errors in 
a work of such immense complexity... Errors, minor or not, that any 
"intuitive student" or advanced chela or adept could easily recognize and 
correct.  I cannot quote specific examples, but my several copies of the SD, 
each heavily annotated, contains many question marks where the meaning of a 
sentence was apparently distorted, and could be misinterpreted because of 
HPB's (and the Masters) cumbersome use of the English language, and their 
unfamiliarity with some of its subtle idiomatic and syntax.  Any editor, with 
a specific and direct knowledge of both modern English and Sanhose specific 
sentences for greater clarity without changing the underlying meaning. In 
fact, my annotated copies of the SD contains many such rewritings of my own, 
and follows HPB's admonition that every student should endeavor to write 
their own Secret Doctrine. Is this why all students in the ULT are encouraged 
to restate the three fundamental propositions "in their own words"?  IMHO, 
HPB would be the last person to disapprove of that.

It is hoped that this nit picking nonsense ends forthwith and stops 
cluttering our mailboxes with self serving (or for whatever other reasons) 
misinformation apparently designed to discredit, by innuendo, not only WQJ, 
but also the editors and publishers of the Theosophy Company, as well as 
members of the United Lodge of Theosophists.  From all this, I might be 
justified in asking; Could there be any "Jesuits" (used metaphorically) among 
us posing as theosophists?  

In a message dated 04/30/00 11:37:18 PM, blafoun@azstarnet.com writes:

>MORE THAN TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES
>
>by Daniel H. Caldwell
>
>In 1928, The Theosophy Company of LA
>issued the following edition of the Voice:
>
>Author:        Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna),
>1831-1891
>Title:         The voice of the silence. . . /
>translated and annotated by H.P.B.
>Published:     Los Angeles : Theosophy Co.,
>1928.
>Description:   iv, 110 p. : port. ; 15 cm.
>
>Unfortunately, there are numerous changes
>between the original 1889 edition of HPB's THE
>VOICE and the Theosophy Company's edition.
>
>In 1928 in the O.E. LIBRARY CRITIC,
>Dr. H.N. Stokes commented on these changes
>in the Theosophy Company's edition of the VOICE.
>
>He wrote:
>
>"There are 665 points of differences, of one sort
>or another, viz.
>
>In the preface. . . . . . . . 34
>In the text. . . . . . .  . .  274
>In the notes. . . . . . . . .357
>
LHM:  So what?  My own book on my ABC theory of consciousness and occult 
energy transformations (of a mere 130 pages so far) has been rewritten 
several times and edited twice, and yet I still found more than 500 
punctuation, spelling and word changes and corrections in the last editing 
cycle alone.  Before publishing, I expect at least one more reediting by a 
trained scientist/writer/editor/occultist, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
there were another 500 changes I'd be willing to accept.
>
>"These. . . consist of changes in punctuation, italics,
>quotation marks, capitals, spelling of Sanskrit words,
>omission of the important diacritical marks over the 
>vowels, and OTHERS.  This averages one change to every 
>three or four lines."  Caps added.

LHM: Guess the original really needed some careful editing by an "expert" in 
the English language -- of which HPB certainly was NOT.
>
>When compared to the original 1889 edition, one also finds
>that many of HPB's words have been deleted or modified 
>and even new words have been added in this edition 
>published by the Theosophy Company.
>
>Below are examples of some of these changes. Asterisks
>indicate italics.
>
>On page vii of the original Preface, HPB wrote:
>"The original *Precepts* are engraved on thin
>oblong squares; copies very often on discs."

LHM:  Very bad example.  "oblong squares" is a classic case of mistaken and 
nonsensical misuse of the English language.

>The Theosophy Company's edition reads (p. ii):
>"The original *Precepts* are engraved on thin
>oblongs; copies very often on discs."
>
>Notice the deletion of the word "squares." Also the
>editorial change of "oblong" into "oblongs."
>
>On p. 73 of the original VOICE, HPB wrote:
>
>>  The "great Master" is the term used by *lanoos* or
>>   chelas to indicate one's "Higher Self."
>
>The Theosophy Company's edition reads (p. 3):
>
>>  The "great Master" is the term used by
>>  Lanoos or Chelas to indicate the HIGHER SELF.
>
LHM:  There is no *personal* Higher Self --which is universal. The change is 
perfectly justifiable, and far more consistent with theosophical concepts.  
HPB made a syntactical error... Again, big deal.
>
>As one can see, there are several changes in this one 
>sentence including deleting a word and adding another.
>
>Again, HPB in the original wrote on pp. 74-75:
>
>>  It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of 
>>  Brahma, theduration of a Kalpa or a period of 
>> 4,320,000,000 years.
>
>The Theosophy Company's edition reads (p. 5):
>
>>  It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of 
>> Brahma, the duration of a Maha-Kalpa or a period of
>>  311,040,000,000,000 years.
>
LHM: HPB made another mistake...  Big deal.
>
>The Theosophy Company's edition has apparently 
>"corrected" and "improved" HPB's original.
>
LHM: Perfectly justified.  The changes are correct and consistent with the 
Hindu chronology as stated in the SD.
>
>Again, the 1889 edition, p. 78:
>
>>  These mystic sounds or the melody heard by the ascetic . . . .
>The TC edition changes this to (p. 19):
>
>>  The mystic sounds, or the melody, heard by the ascetic . . . .
>
>"These" has been changed to "The"
>
LHM:  Check the context, and you'll see why. "Mystic Sounds" (as "music") is 
singular and deserves a "the."
HPB made simple grammatical error that had to be corrected.  

>Is this an "improvement"?  Is this a "correction"?

LHM: Leading question.  Sounds like a Jesuit lawyer.:-)
But, as HPB would say, "it is neither one nor the other, but both"... And, 
deservedly so.  This changed word makes more sense when read out of context 
-- without changing any of the meaning of the sentence.  Why fault such an 
obviously necessary correction and improvement?   

>Again, the original VOICE, p. 87:
>
>>  *Upadya* is a spiritual perceptor, a Guru.
>
>The TC editions reads (p. 49):
>
>>  *Upadhyaya* is a spiritual preceptor, a Guru.
>
>Is this another "correction" of HPB's Sanskrit scholarship?
>
LHM: Why not?  WQJ was one of HPB's Sanskrit advisors. He may have been even 
more of a Sanskrit scholar than she was... And anyone can make a mistake in 
spelling.  But, since when did word spelling have anything to do with the 
yoga teachings in the VOiCE?  
>
>Once, again, the original VOICE reads on p. 82:
>
>>  Bodhidharma called them in China---from whence
>>  the names reached Tibet---the *Tsung-men* (esoteric)
>>  and  *Kiau-men* (exoteric school).
>
>The TC edition changes this passage to read:  (p. 25)
>
>>  The *Bodhidharma*, Wisdom Religion in China---
>>  whence the names reached Tibet---called them the
>>  *Tsung-men* (Esoteric) and *Kiau-men* (Exoteric
>>  school).
>
LHM:  This takes the cake for nit picking. Since when did Bodhidharma refer 
to a personage?  And, even if there was a personage of that Name in India, 
are you sure he ever went to China?  Or, did his teachings go there -- like 
the teachings of the Buddha.
>
>On pp. x-xi of the original, one finds the following:
>
>>  . . . (*Bhagavatgita II*. 70). . . .
>>  . . . (*Bhagavatgita II*. 27). . . .
>
>The TC edition (p. iv) changes the spelling of this Hindu 
>text and deletes the numbers "70" and "27".
>
LHM:  Why not?  HPB mispelled the words "Bhagavad Gita" -- as we spell it in 
modern english. And, the numbers refer to an unknown edition of the BG which 
Judge rightfully knew would be confusing to modern students who read a 
different version. So, he cut it out... (As should be this nit picking.:-)
>
>Are these more editorial "corrections"?
>
>The above examples document that some of HPB's own 
>words have been changed as well as deleted.  Are these 
>"improvements" and/or "corrections"?  These changes 
>certainly indicate that the TC version has been "edited."
>
LHM:  Who ever denied it?  It's all in the Theosophy Company's records of 
publication and in their initial announcements.  What ax is being ground here?
>
>Also the spelling of many Sanskrit words has been
>changed in the TC edition when compared with
>the original 1889 edition of the VOICE.

LHM: So, what are you trying to prove?  What's the big deal? Would anyone be 
any wiser reading one edition or the other?  So, cool it already.  Enough is 
enough....

LHM

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.