Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00285)

I hope it was understood when I was talking about the Complete works in my 
last post that it was referring to the Collected Writings (a little unconscious 
editing in my part?)


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "arielaretziel" <arielaretziel@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> I know in Adyar, India, they publish the Key to Theosophy only in a highly 
> edited and reduced format as was done by Cara M. Codd. If you want the 
> complete and original version, you can only do so by buying the Complete 
> Works of Blavatsky, or knowing which volume it is. 
> 
> This is strange, as The Key to Theosophy was once considered an easy to 
> understand introduction for new students.
> 
> I would be curious to know how much of the Complete Works has been 
> edited.
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" <
> danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > Dallas, you recently wrote (Wed. Dec. 17, 2003) to
> > Reed Carson:
> > 
> > "At least we have her [HPB's] texts as she edited them
> > -- no confusion there. But it is interesting to see
> > on review that as soon as the original texts ran out
> > of print, and she was dead; as early as 1893, 2 years
> > later, students hastened to introduce changes from
> > hers to their versions of what those texts meant, thus
> > altering the originals. . . ."
> > 
> > Yes, Dallas, I agree with what you write above.
> > 
> > But what are you suggesting?
> > 
> > Dallas, are you recommending that Blavatsky students
> > should avoid using ALL "altered" versions of HPB's
> > originals??
> > 
> > For the BENEFIT of readers of your postings, can you
> > give us a list of inprint editions of HPB's works that
> > give HPB's "texts as she edited them"; in other words,
> > editions that contain NO "changes" or "altering" by
> > students?
> > 
> > Dallas, I think such a list would be very helpful
> > ESPECIALLY for inquirers and new students of Theosophy
> > who do not have the years of study that you have. This
> > will help students to avoid the "confusion" you
> > indirectly refer to in your above statement.
> > 
> > Daniel