Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00078)

Thanks, Jerome, for that "Preface" from Annie Besant for
(apparently?) HPB's SD III. In the following, I'm responding to Annie 
Besant as if she were a member of this discussion list.

Annie Besant wrote:
<<The task of preparing this volume for the press has been a difficult 
and anxious one, and it is necessary to state clearly what has been 
done. The papers given to me by H.P.B. were quite unarranged, and had 
no obvious order; I have therefore taken each paper as a separate 
Section, and have arranged them as sequentially as possible. With the 
exception of the correction of grammatical errors and the elimination 
of obviously un-English idioms, the papers are as H.P.B. left them, 
save as otherwise marked. In a few cases I have filled in a gap, but 
any such addition is enclosed within square brackets, so as to be 
distinguished from the text.>>>

The "otherwise marked" and "square brackets so as to be distinguished 
from the text." sounds good go me.

<<In "The Mystery of Buddha" a further difficulty arose; some of the 
Sections had been written four or five times over, each version 
containing some sentences that were not in the others; I have pieced 
these versions together,taking the fullest as basis, and inserting 
therein everything added in any other versions. It is, however, with 
some hesitation that I have included these Sections in the Secret 
Doctrine .>>

In any case, one might wonder whether HPB's original SD III writings 
are still available anywhere? To date, I haven't read your edited 
versions.

<<Together with some most suggestive thought, they contain very 
numerous errors of fact, and many statements based on exoteric 
writings, not on esoteric knowledge.>>

^:-/ But, (one might ask?), are HPB's original SD III writings still 
available anywhere? Could you tell us (AB, or anybody?) where we 
might find HPB's original SD III writings, so that that we might all 
read/interpret her original writings for ourselves? If you were 
concerned about preserving the original writings, why didn't you just 
preserve them, totally intact, (or did you?), because you could have 
then gone ahead to edit from copies? That is, in light of Cleather's 
critical comments about your editing (for one?), seems to me that some 
of us might wonder what happenened to the original SD III words that 
HPB wrote?

<< They were given into my hands to publish, as part of the Third 
Volume of the Secret Doctrine, and I therefore do not feel justified 
in coming between the author and the public, either by altering the 
statements, to make them consistent with fact, or by suppressing the 
Sections.>>

Okay, but if I may go back to your earlier paragraph: <<<<In "The 
Mystery of Buddha" a further difficulty arose; some of the Sections 
had been written four or five times over, each version containing some 
sentences that were not in the others; I have pieced these versions 
together,taking the fullest as basis, and inserting therein everything 
added in any other versions. It is, however, with some hesitation that 
I have included these Sections in the Secret Doctrine .>> Your 
wording there leaves me wondering about the specifics of your 
interpretations re such as "pieced these versions together," "taking 
the fullest as basis," and "inserting therein everything added in any 
other versions." Did you have the option to offer the unedited 
version to the general public? If so, why say "with some hesitation" 
when/if you could've pointed out that one version is your edited 
version and one version is the original version from HPB? Doesn't one 
have the option in life to offer one's speculations as to what 
another might have meant, AS WELL AS offer, where available, the 
original words? So I tend to find your choice of words << It is, 
however, with some hesitation that I have included these Sections in 
the Secret Doctrine .>> to be kind of curious in that 
connection/context, partly because of Cleather's comments. Or, in 
other words, if you had trouble figuring out what HPB might've meant 
to say, why not leave her "possible meaning" intact in the sense of 
leaving the words as you found them? Or did you do just that? Of 
course (?), if you saw yourself as HPB's successor, then the 
temptation to offer your "own opinions" might've led to ... well, the 
kinds of words you offered in that Preface? I guess we all tend to 
interpret about "exoteric/esoteric" somewhat personally?

<<She says she is acting entirely on her own authority, and it will 
be obvious to any instructed reader that she makes - possibly 
deliberately - many statements so confused that they are mere blinds, 
and other statements - probably inadvertently - that are nothing more 
than the exoteric misunderstandings of esoteric truths.>>

Thanks for your opinions, but if HPB's original SD III words are 
nowhere to be seen (?), how can any of us decide for ourselves about 
what is what? Did you preserve the originals? I suspect that there 
may be a few people, here and there, (would you believe?), who may not 
be particularly inclined to follow your lead, in spite of your 
position as leader. A.L. Cleather, for example, comes to mind.

<< The reader must here, as everywhere, use his own judgment, but 
feeling bound to publish these Sections, I cannot let them go to the 
public without a warning that much in them is certainly erroneous.>>

One might wonder if you might now be saying that maybe you didn't do 
any editing, after all, or what? ^:-/ Thanks for the warning, 
though. I'll see if I can keep my eye out for the "erroneous" stuff. 
So could you tell us which parts are the original, unedited, 
"erroneous" parts? What with your introductions, my curiosity about 
such "erroneousness" is growing by leaps and bounds.

<<Doubtless, had the author herself issued this book, she would have 
entirely rewritten the whole of this division; as it was, it seemed 
best to give all she had said in the different copies, and to leave it 
in its rather unfinished state, for students will best like to have 
what she said as she said it, even though they may have to study it 
more closely than would have been the case had she remained to finish 
her work.>>

Are you saying that you're offering the original, unedited versions, 
after all? But ... Cleather says in her GREAT BETRAYAL that you made 
thousands of edits to SD III. So ... ^:-/ I'm confused, scratching 
my head
again.

<<The quotations made have been as far as possible found, and 
correct references given; in this most laborious work a whole band of 
earnest and painstaking students,under the guidance of Mrs. 
Cooper-Oakley, have been my willing assistants. Without their aid it 
would not have been possible to give the references, as often a whole 
book had to be searched through, in order to find a paragraph of a few 
lines.>>

What's that? You went ahead and actually found at least some of those 
books that HPB referred to? Did you have in mind to, maybe, check 
out the references in SD I and II as well? Except that some those 
writings that HPB referred to might be kind of hard to find, eh?

<<This volume completes the papers left by H.P.B., with the exception 
of a few scattered articles that yet remain and that will be published 
in her own magazine Lucifer. Her pupils are well aware that few will 
be found in the present generation to do justice to the occult 
knowledge of H.P.B., and to her magnificent sweep of thoughts, but as 
she can wait to future generations for the justification of her 
greatness as a teacher, so can her pupils afford to wait for the 
justification of their trust. ANNIE BESANT.
THE SECRET DOCTRINE
by H.P.Blavatsky VOLUME III
OCCULTISM.>>

Just speculatively speaking: I tend to get the impression (ie, for 
better or worse!) that your leadership, Annie Besant, might be lacking 
in what might be called "spiritual perception," or something like that 
(as if your intellectual side might get in the way, here and there?) 
... Not that we couldn't all do with more of various kind of 
perceptions, wisdoms. But/"but" ... ? And I couldn't really figure 
out from your Preface whether/how Cleather's commentary in GREAT 
BETRAYAL might've been justified, in some sense, maybe.

You talk about such as << They were given into my hands to publish, as 
part of the Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine, and I therefore do 
not feel justified in coming between the author and the public, either 
by altering the statements, to make them consistent with fact, or by 
suppressing the Sections.>> but you also offer words that tend to 
leave some questions in my mind about how you might have, in fact, 
altered some of HPB's wording, intended meaning, and not just 
spelling. Have you had a talk with Cleather about your editing of 
HPB's writings?

Speculatively,
Mauri