[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Errors and their importance

Jan 24, 1999 08:08 AM
by Alpha (Tony)

Daniel writes:
>Tony writes:
>"Thousands and thousands of so called mistakes by HPB, have been so called
>corrected by those who thought they knew better.  It is the age old
problem. It has
>by its nature to be an exoteric exercise, but sadly one which so often
destroys a
>far more significant meaning.  And your concerned about hundreds more.  TRY
and see
>what is already there.  Now we are able to get facsimiles of some of her
>Tony, what is your background assumption behind the above statement?

It isn't an assumption.  It is through studying HPBs works with others and
finding this to be the case.

>Do you believe that there are any mistakes whatsoever in HPB's writings?
>Master KH wrote that there were mistakes in Isis Unveiled.  Do you agree
with the

Yes, which also gives the answer to the previous question.
>What about HPB's other writings?

There is a fundamental difference Daniel in the way of looking at things.
HPBs so called "mistakes" seem to be of concern to you.  Another approach is
to work on the basis that she didn't make mistakes, as such (it just can't
be crystallized to a yes and no answer.)  If someone or some entity can see
from all the "angles" and have  7 x 7 x 7 + 7 vision, they would better able
to judge.
>I ask these questions because I don't think Rich was on theos-talk when we
had a
>similar discussion many months ago.

Are you absolutely certain that is the reason Daniel?  Or is it that you
want somebody to say, yes there are, or no there aren't mistakes in HPBs
writings, which is what some of us aren't about.  We just don't look at
Theosophy in that way. Can't you accept that?

Here is a question for you:
Do you agree that the error rate of the Quest Centenary edition of "The
Voice of the Silence" is 100% (error rate) - which it is?
On the cover it describes it as a facsimile reprint, and yet on comparing it
with the original it comes to notice that it is in a different
font/type-face (even though it says it is a facsimile) - so how can it be a
facsimile?  And yet your suggestion was that it was more accurate than the
Theosophy Co edition.
It all depends at where the view of it is from:
from the facsimile point of view, it isn't a facsimile, and therefore has to
be immediately disqualified;
from a words point of view it is more accurate by what you say.
So there isn't a YES or NO answer.  It all depends.....
Can you accept this?


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application