Zirkoff Didn't Need Besant's SD
May 17, 2006 07:56 AM
In the "Collected Writings" , Boris published texts which ALSO were in the Besant's 3rd volume.
But most likely he got them from their originals.
He did not depend on Besant's edition.
He had access to Adyar's Archives. He did not have to copy from Besant's false edition.
I hope this is clear now.
Data:Tue, 16 May 2006 16:15:15 -0000
Assunto:Theos-World Quote on Socrates : Your point is?
> In your posting at:
> you wrote:
> "So what? Your point is? Nobody said A. Besant's SD is entirely
> Well, there are some students of Blavatsky who ENTIRELY reject
> this Third Volume and who will NOT use any material from the
> volume since they believe Mrs. Besant mutilated the text.
> As one student once said to me, how do you know what is HPB's and
> what Mrs. Besant added, changed or deleted from HPB's text.
> So Carlos I'm glad that you apparently do not accept this extreme
> view and you see worth in the HPB material in this third volume.
> This is one of my points.
> Now to another point.
> In my previous posting on this subject, I quoted the publisher's
> note from the Theosophy Company that said that the Third Volume of
> the SD that was published in 1897 "forms no part of the original
> SECRET DOCTRINE written by H.P.B."
> Notice the words: NO PART
> Now I ask: how does the writer of this statement know this?
> Unfortunately, the writer does not give us any details whatsoever so
> we are not in a position to understand the reasoning or the evidence
> that may have led him to that conclusion.
> But focusing on NO PART, I would like to take the "part" that you
> quote, that is, the HPB quote on Socrates, look at that part and see
> if we can determine if that material was actually "A PART of the
> original SECRET DOCTRINE written by H.P.B."
> I will do this in my next posting.
> Blavatsky Study Center
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application