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

Bottom Line: both Besant & de Zirkoff editions of SD have been SILENTLY EDITED

Jul 20, 2006 02:40 PM
by danielhcaldwell

Carlos, you write:

"I am open to criticisms about anything, including Boris' work. But 
Boris' enormous contribution to the movement is undeniable, as well 
as the fact that his edition of "The Secret Doctrine" (which may not 
be absolutely perfect) , is basicly reliable, and much better than 
the Besant's one."

Who is questioning "Boris' enormous contribution to the movement"??

But THE FACT REMAINS that Boris' edition of HPB's SD has been 

Again you say that Boris' edition is "much better than the Besant's 

Well, it all depends on what you consider "much better".  What are 
your critieria?

Considering only the SILENT EDITING issue, have you COMPARED all of 
the silent editing in the de Zirkoff edition with all of the silent 
editing in the Besant edition to be in a good position to really 
judge if the de Zirkoff edition is "better" or "much better" than 
the Besant edition.

MY POINT is that both have been SILENTLY EDITED or as Dallas calls it

And the general observations (see below) made by both Dallas T. and 
Peter M. still apply to BOTH the Besant and De Zirkoff editions.

Here are Peter's words:

Speaking for myself, I would rather have HPB' writings as they were
completed and published by her. I don't want somebody in-between 
correcting the text according to his own ideas of what HPB *might* 
have put if she had reflected upon it later.

While HPB's says all her works contain mistakes I would not want to 
be the one who decides what they are and corrects them on her 
behalf, nor would I want to decide for others what is a service to 
them by changes I might make to the SD. Even with the mistakes, my 
many years of studying her works has left me feeling confident in 
them as they are. That is not a feeling of confidence I would be 
willing to place in Boris de Zirkoff, though I admire the work he 
has done collating the material for the Collected Writings.

Here are Dallas' words:

Those who insist on using the ORIGINAL WRITINGS from which to
study and grow in understanding are, in my esteem, not being
dogmatic, they are merely being careful.

For their understanding they can (in case of The SECRET
DOCTRINE ) recall that the Mahatmas gave Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden a
signed certificate ( reprinted by Mr. Judge in PATH Magazine,
Vol. 8, p. 1-3 ) This certificate stated that The SECRET
DOCTRINE was the produced under their triple authorship.

Personally, I have a great pity for those who have made
alterations and invisible editing in such an important work. I
include all who may have done this in my mind. On the opposite
hand: I feel gratitude for those who have offered "corrections
needed in the ORIGINAL" and that they think will be helpful to
students, but who have been careful to IDENTIFY and FOOTNOTE
their changes so that the said student has a choice.

By what amounts to "concealing" those changes made in the
ORIGINAL (yet using the Original Title) and thus tacitly
attributing those new and interposed changes to the Author - who
has had no chance to agree to them -- they may have blurred or
obscured some meanings. Just how important those altered
meanings and changes are, need not be a subject for restudy if
one deals with the ORIGINALS to begin with.

Bottom Line:  BOTH Besant & de Zirkoff editions of SD have been 


[Back to Top]

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