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

Re: Theos-World More on "Tampering" with HPB's THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE

Feb 13, 2006 07:30 PM
by leonmaurer

Since Daniel will never stop this nonsense, I am answering below each of his 
noted changes in the VOS.   Proving, incidentally, that he is no learned 
metaphysician, occultist or deeply learned student of theosophy, and threereby, 
cannot make any valid judgements about the changes or corrections made in the VOS 
or the any of the other metaphysical writings of HPB.   Let the chips fall 
where they may.

In a message dated 2/11/06 10:51:52 AM, writes:

> Mr. Carlos Aveline writes to Betty Bland about
> "tampering" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> Students interested in the above subject may also
> be interested in the following.
> Below is evidence of tampering with HPB's THE VOICE OF
> ---------------------------------------------
> by Daniel H. Caldwell
> I would like to start this article by quoting
> two excerpts from what Dallas TenBroeck has written
> about HPB's writings:
> "If accuracy is desired the best way to secure this is to go
> direct to the ORIGINAL (un-edited) text of HPB's
> books and articles."
> "After HPB died several of her students, in time, claimed to be
> able to 'correct' her writings, and proceeded to do this.  Also,
> most of her writings . . . were amended and edited without any
> notes to advise readers of the changes made. . . ."
> In 1928, The Theosophy Company of LA
> issued the following edition of the Voice:
> Author:        Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
> 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
> "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.
> 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.
We will presume that these examples are the most important one's that Daniel 
could dig out of Dr. H.N. Stokes listing of the changes in the VOS edition 
published by the TC so as to apparently discredit both ULT and its associated 
publishing company.

> On page vii of the original Preface, HPB wrote:
> "The original *Precepts* are engraved on thin
> oblong squares; copies very often on discs."
> 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."
Which much more clearly describes the appearance of those disks in proper 
English, while eliminating a misleading oxymoron. 

> 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.
> As one can see, there are several changes in this one sentence
> including deleting a word and adding another.
This is a justified correction by a knowledgeable occultist -- since, 
according to HPB herself as explained later in the SD, the HIGHER SELF does not 
belong to any "one" individual, but is the seat of the consciousness or Spirit of 
the Supreme Being or ParaBrahm -- The rootless root of all that is, was or ever 
will be.

> Again, HPB in the original wrote on pp. 74-75:
> >  It stands generally for the 100 years or "age" of Brahma, the
> >  duration 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.
> The Theosophy Company's edition has apparently "corrected"
> and "improved" HPB's original.
Necessarily so -- since, in the SD, HPB gives the proper length of the 100 
year "Age of Brahma as being "a Maha-Kalpa or a period of 311,040,000,000,000 
(Earth) years." See: Theosophical Glossary:

> 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"
> Is this an "improvement"?  Is this a "correction"?
Neither one nor the other, but actually, both.   In fact, it's just plain 
simple proofreader's or editor's normal additions, transpositions or punctuation 
changes to fix poor grammar. This happens many times on reprints, to fix 
previous typographical or grammatical errors by authors or proofreaders.

> 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?
Yes, and correctly so.   Let's face it, she made an error (and not the first 
one at that) easily recognized by another "Sanskrit scholar" like WQJ.   See 
Theosophical Glossary:

> 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).
This certainly clarifies the meaning of the word *Bodhidharma*, which in the 
original wording could easily be mistaken for the name of a person.

> 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".
> Are these more editorial "corrections"?
What's wrong with correcting the spelling of the referenced book's title, or 
changing the numbers of the page references so as to correspond with the 
translated edition of the Bhagavad Gita published by the TC? And, since when do 
"Hindu texts" (especially Hindu-English texts.:-) have any less typographical or 
spelling errors than non Hindu texts?   
> 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."
Certainly, as it had to have been, since WQJ, a founder and equal 
collaborator with HPB, would be remiss as an editor/publisher if he allowed all those 
obvious typographical, spelling and factual errors to go uncorrected.

> Also the spelling of many Sanskrit words has been
> changed in the TC edition when compared with
> the original 1889 edition of the VOICE.
Why not, if they were incorrect in the first place -- whether due to the 
carelessness of HPB or the ignorance of her proofreaders and printers of the 1889 

> HPB took great pains to put certain words and phrases in
> italics or caps in the original edition of the VOICE. 
> In the 1928 edition of the VOICE, scores of
> changes in italics and caps can be observed.
> Therefore, many serious students of HPB's writings
> have reasonably concluded that these changes marr
> what HPB intentionally and consciously wanted to
> emphasize or convey to readers of that work.
> For some unknown reason the Theosophy Company never
> indicated in the 1928 edition or in any subsequent
> reprints that there were numerous changes and corrections
> made in this edition that were NOT in Madame Blavatsky's
> original.  Hence, whole generations of ULT students and other
> readers of this edition were totally unaware that said
> edition was not verbatim with HPB's first edition of 1889.
Naturally not, since none of those minor yet significant editorial changes or 
corrections in any way changed the meaning of the Heart Doctrine teachings in 
the Body of the VOS.   So, what difference would it have made if those 
students knew about the differences.   As a onetime book designer, I made many 
changes in an authors original writings (including respected scientists, among 
other famous writers) while proofreading galleys -- that were never reported by 
the publisher to the readers or objected to by the writers. 

> See related articles at:
Since those references have already been answered numerous times, why not 
take a look at another side of the issue by referring to the following related 

My post of Feb 12 Subject: Re: Theos-World Some Examples of the Changes in 
The Voice of the Silence

Hope this is enough to finally end this nit picking nonsense.   


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

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