May 22, 2006 00:03 AM
By tirelessly defending the legitimacy of Besant's third volume, which has
abandoned even by the Adyar TPH ( not to mention all other theosophical
perhaps the "Blavatsky Archives Online" are aiming at Boris de Zirkoff's
For if that volume were legitimate, then Boris would have made a serious of
grave mistakes. It is not so.
Yet Boris was commited to the movement; he made a great and immense work;
efficient; he has the universal support or at least the respect of all
His "consolidation" of HPB's writings will probably last many centuries.
After in 1925 some ULT members published the first fac-simile edition of the
original "The Secret Doctrine", the whole of the movement gradually
Besant's "The Secret Doctrine". I am happy about that.
HPB's Works, as edited in the facsimile editions and in HPB's "Collected
Wirtings", is something all of the movement shares. It is "common
Its edition and publication is the merit of theosophists from several
As the centuries go by, its influence must grow and spread.
Best regards, Carlos.
Data:Sat, 20 May 2006 15:42:30 -0000
Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World MERE WRITTEN EVIDENCE??: "What the Occultists &
Kabalists Have to Say"
> MERE WRITTEN EVIDENCE??
> "What the Occultists & Kabalists Have to Say": Part of the original
> The Theosophy Company states that SD volume III (1897)
> "forms NO PART of the original SECRET DOCTRINE written by H.P.B."
> caps added
> Unfortunately, the writer of this statement does not
> give us either his reasoning or the evidence that would help us
> to understand how he arrived at that conclusion.
> Thinking about this statement, one might ask:
> What does the writer mean by "the original SECRET DOCTRINE written
> by H.P.B. "?
> Now it is my thesis that the HPB quote on Socrates that Carlos
> Aveline cited is actually from "the original SECRET DOCTRINE written
> by H.P.B."
> The HPB quote on Socrates is to be found in a section or chapter
> or article titled:
> "What the Occultists and Kabalists Have to Say"
> This article was originally published in 1897 in Volume III of the
> SD on pages 211-214.
> An online version of this article from SD, Volume III
> can be viewed at:
> Boris de Zirkoff REPRINTED this article in HPB's Collected Writings,
> Volume XIV, pages 220-224.
> Now as I said above, it is my thesis that the HPB quote on Socrates
> and in fact the whole article "What the Occultists and Kabalists
> Have to Say" was "part of the original SECRET DOCTRINE written by
> What was "the original SECRET DOCTRINE"?
> Bertram Keightley tells us that upon her arrival in London in May,
> 1887, Madame Blavatsky "placed the whole of the so far completed
> MSS. [of The Secret Doctrine] in the hands of Dr. [Archibald]
> Keightley and myself....We both read the whole mass of MSS.--a pile
> over three feet high--most carefully through." Reminiscences of H.
> P. Blavatsky and The Secret Doctrine, by Countess Constance
> Wachtmeister et al., Quest edition, 1976, p. 78.
> Bertram goes on to say that this original SD manuscript was divided
> into three parts or volumes:
> • Volume I: History of some great Occultists
> • Volume II: Evolution of Cosmos
> • Volume III: Evolution of Man
> Bertram's reference to "the whole of the so-far completed MSS." is
> to the original Secret Doctrine manuscript, written during the
> period 1884 through April, 1887, which was in HPB's own handwriting.
> Now this division of the original SD manuscript into the above 3
> volumes is VERIFIED by looking at the so-called Wurzburg manuscript
> of the SD.
> What is the Wurzburg manuscript?
> In a letter dated September 23, 1886 (only eight months before
> Bertram Keightley read the three volumes in London), HPB wrote to
> Colonel Henry S. Olcott:
> "I send you the MSS. of Secret Doctrine.....Now I send only 1st
> volume of Introduct. Section.... " [quoted in de Zirkoff , SD
> Intro., 30-1]
> This manuscript to be sent to Colonel Olcott was NOT the original
> manuscript in HPB's own handwriting but A COPY of the original
> transcribed by Countess Constance Wachtmeister and Mrs. Mary Gebhard.
> This "lst volume" manuscript is part of the "Wurzburg Manuscript"
> now preserved in the Archives of the Theosophical Society, Adyar,
> Madras, India.
> According to Colonel Olcott's handwritten diaries, this volume was
> received by him in India on Dec. 15, 1886.
> Bertram's testimony given above and the even more important witness
> (the Wurzburg manuscript itself) gives us very valuable information
> about the arrangement and the contents of HPB's original manuscript
> of the SD as of the latter part of 1886 and up thru May 1887.
> If you look in Volume I of the Wurzburg manuscript which dates from
> 1886 you find the whole article titled "What the Occultists and
> Kabalists Have to Say" on pages 159-69. And in this article in the
> manuscript you will find the HPB quote on Socrates.
> I have a photocopy of these manuscript pages and C. Jinarajadasa
> published this article or section from the Wurzburg manuscript of
> the SD in the pages of the Theosophist.
> Theosophist, Oct. 1933, 14-6; and
> Theosophist, Nov. 1933, 143-6
> I now transcribe from the photocopy of this manuscript the HPB quote
> on Socrates:
> Julian died for the same crime as Socrates. Both divulged a portion
> of the Solar Mystery --- the heliocentric system being only a part
> of what was given during the Initiation --- one consciously, the
> other unconsciously, as the Greek Sage had never been initiated. It
> was not the real Solar System that was preserved in such secrecy,
> but the mysteries connected with the Sun's constitution. Socrates
> was sentenced to death by earthly and worldly judges; Julian died a
> violent death because the hitherto protecting hand had been
> withdrawn from him, and no longer shielded by it, he was simply left
> to his destiny or Karma. For the student of Occultism there is a
> suggestive difference between the two kinds of death.
> The Wurzburg manuscript is A WITNESS to the fact that this
> article "What the Occultists and Kabalists Have to Say" to be found
> in SD, Vol. III (1897) was in fact PART of HPB's original Secret
> Doctrine Manuscript of 1886 and was in Volume One of this manuscript.
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> Blavatsky Study Center
Carlos, Daniel et al –
As I am sure you both know, but others may wish to read that much of your
‘debate’ is carefully covered in Boris’ intro. to BCW 14 pp.xxvii –xliv.
He methodically describes how and why each part of this volume was put
together. Boris notes also p. xliii “…the sections entitled “The Mystery of
the Buddha” contain some of the most recondite teachings of the Esoteric
Philosophy, including certain tenets merely hinted at and which do not
occur anywhere else in the entire literary output of HPB…”etc. While I can
see how R. Robb may describe some of the material in this volume as from
the ‘Isis era’ and agree to some degree, other parts on the Buddha, the
very significant “unpublished Discourse of the Buddha’, Secret Books of Lam
Rim, Nirvana Moksha, Tsong Khapa, Doctrine of the Eye and Heart and as well
the several chapters on various Adepts, Emperor Julian which fit into the
described ‘Adept Biography’ theme of the 3rd volume, really do not appear
to be part of the ‘Isis era’. So it looks to me – going over it rather
quickly – that it is about 50/50, but all valid HPB material. It almost
looks as if material in preparation for vol.3 of the SD and material never
published from the earlier
Isis era’ were put together to create the ‘Besant 3rd volume SD’, but I am
only speculating at this point. Your ‘discussion’ of this subject did have
one benefit regarding a point I wanted to get clear – how many mss. of the
SD were there ? So checking all the refs in the HPB Letters to Sinnett it
is clear that there were at least 3 complete. One in HPB’s handwriting, the
Wurzburg mss of 1886 in someone elses handwriting AND a typescript which
HPB paid for and was sent to Olcott to give to Subba Rao (ODL 4th series
p.22) Why is this important ? Well, I do think it possible that there was a
yet more complete 3rd volume than in the 1886 copy we have, either in
HPB’s original handwritten one or the typescript she had done. In the
letter LXXX to Sinnett she states : every section beginning with a page of
translation from the Book of Dzyan and the Secret Book of ‘Maitreya Buddha’
Champai chhos Nga (in prose, not the five books in verse known, which are a
blind) are no fiction.” Well, neither the 1886 mss nor the printed SD
include anything like the ‘Secret Book of Maitreya’. So, what happened to
this important material ? (for more on this subject see Blavatsky’s Secret
Books by David Reigle p. 85 re Jonangpa school etc.) Well, forgive me for
wandering far afield from the (to me ) narrow scope of your discussion,
but I do appreciate a lot of the data churned up and always hopeful that
such may lead to more clarity – if even only of an historical type.
PS – Cass/Carlos and Socrates ‘inquiry’ – There are some references in the
Mahatma Letters regarding Socrates: letter 117, p. 400, letter 31, p.98,
letter 12, p. 36 in the chronological edition. In what direction do M and
KH's view take this debate ?
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application