RE: DANIEL'S SILENT EDITING
Jul 16, 2006 12:59 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck
From: W.Dallas TenBroeck [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 5:47 PM
7/15/2006 5:39 PM
RE: DANIEL'S SILENT EDITING (allegation)
In all fairness, if anyone makes accusations, then where is the evidence?
Can examples of this “silent editing” be actually advanced for us to make
comparisons with the originals ?
DANIEL'S SILENT EDITING
This, below, is an important contribution.
I saw that Daniel book was disastrous. But I could not compare it with his
former book and did not think the difference was so great. Thanks for the
The fact that the difference between the two books is for the worse shows in
which direction Daniel Caldwell has evolved in the years between 1991 and
As to his making lots of changes and not anouncing them, this is but one
more example of that which Ernest Pelletier, the Canadian author, has
correctly called "silent editting", started in Adyar TS after HPB's death.
The same "process" happened with Annie Besant's "third volume" of "The
Several books by C. W. Leadbeater which are still for sale have been
suffering this process of Silent Editing over the decades -- one major
example being "The Inner Life" (the book which originally described the
imaginary visits of CWL to Mercury and Mars).
There is much more. The Adyar edition of a small volume under the general
title of "Practical Occultism", by H. P. Blavatsky, includes several texts
which were never written by HPB.
Not to mention the inclusion of various well-known false "testimonies" in
Caldwell's book on HPB. These texts also happen to be tremendously offensive
to the truth, to HPB, to the movement, and to the Mahatmas.
Of course the Masters do not care about that, but their 19th century names
and images should deserve respect, as HPB explained most clearly in "The Key
to Theosophy". We ourselves, as humans, are only benefited by having respect
for the idea of Mahatmas -- an idea which, taken in abstract, corresponds to
the ideas of "Immortals" in Taoism, "Buddhas" and "Arhats" in Buddhism,
"Rishis" of Hinduism, etc.
Classical Buddhism (and specifically Shin Buddhism) teaches that slandering
masters is a grave mistake; and it certainly is, since true masters are
involved with the growth of our souls.
So Daniel Caldwell's editorial inaccuracy is not an isolated fact.
There has been a whole editorial policy based in manipulation and distortion
of facts, perhaps with good intentions in some cases. A policy which has
nothing in common with real scholarship and which, I suspect, would not be
acceptable in any University or University Press.
Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
Data:Wed, 12 Jul 2006
Assunto: Deceptive Publishing
DECEPTIVE PUBLISHING: IT MATTERS
In the front of Caldwell's "The
Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky,"
"TPH/Quest Edition," 2000 it says on
the title page: "Originally published
as 'The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky.'"
(Impossible Dream Publications, 1991,
Tucson, and was presumably privately
This is not true, they are
different books, "The Esoteric World of
Mme B." having maybe a third or quarter
more material than "The Occult World
of Mme. B."
This first book, I liked. It was a
great compilation of personal accounts
related to Blavatsky which were mostly
all sympathetic. The second book has
much new editorical material, new
antipathetic accounts which reflected
the authors new "scholarly" approach and
new publisher, TPH at Wheaton. In other
words, in order to be acceptable by academic
types, you have to have negative biographical
material as well as positive - even though at
least some of the negative material is known
to be untrue. (Otherwise you have the
Well, why does this matter? - all of
"Occult World" is in the latter "Esoteric
World," even though its about a third
longer. The title page is not truthful for
one thing. The second book is editorially
changed and marks Caldwell's transition
from unrespectable "HPB student" to
respectable "HPB scholar," and thus money
from a publisher. Also, I (and probably
many others) didn't buy the second book
because I saw it referred to as a reprint
of the same book (not!). The results of this
is that probably many serious Blavatsky
students bought the first book, but did not
buy the second book - thus "Esoteric World
of Mme. Blavatsky" did not engender much of
the criticism it would have from the new
"neutral-towards-Blavatsky" editorial stance.
Was the misleading title page for purposes
of hiding the book from criticism, or just
"unscholarly" and careless and misleading?
If such is acceptable practice, it
- jake j
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application