Re: Questions about the SD and the 3rd object of the TS
May 08, 2012 03:47 PM
I have exchanged some ideas with Morten about these questions. I asked him if I could publish his replies and he kindly agreed.
I asked him:
What version of the the SD do you prefer, the original or the one edited by Boris de Zirkoff?
"Prefer? --- Clearly the original 1ed. and the exact same 2nd ed. by
Blavatsky herself. I will in my own - wisdom/ignorance - rest assured that Blavatsky wrote her version from a higher level than the Zirkoff version - even when I take the time-gap between them into consideration. This is logical to me. But perhaps not to others. I will let each reader
compare the versions and decide for themselves.
Daniel Caldwell has for instance in an old email on Theos-talk pointed out the "mutilation" by Zirkoff of the various symbols used by Blavatsky in the Proem of the Secret Doctrine. And I think also that this is reason enough to reconsider HPB's version the best choice.
Here is one example or two:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1607 (Here is a thread on the same from the year 2001.)
All the above remarks are however just my views.
What is important is, as I see it, not fanatical views about it, but what the particular book or texts might teach each the individual --- whether it is an original version or not...
About the various editions of the Secret Doctrine I will add:
The whole idea about a person or two re-writting books or volumes of another person - like the Secret Doctrine - and - perform thousands of changes and even addings - and then reprint it in the same authors name, giving their own names as editors of the new edition - does not give me that - pure Sounded Bell-ringing - one sometimes hear in the Himalayas around the corners on the narrow roads of pilgrimage. There seem to be something ethically wrong in doing like that. They aught to write their own books instead....Well, if you get my drift...? Smile...."
I asked him:
Do you consider to be of relevance the suppression of the words "psychic" and "spiritual" in the current version of the 3rd object as shown in the TS website? It seems that for what Cass told me the ULT respects the original wording. Why did the TS changed the wording? Do they consider those words uncomfortable? Does it look more respectable if you suppress them? Or it is just irrelevant?
The third object was not clearly formulated as a part of the original
constitution of the TS as given in 1875 or at least not in the same manner
as later on, although one in a sense can deduce it from the original
Changes of the third object is given here for various years:
Now, the word "psychic" had a quite different meaning in the 1880'ties than it has today. This is easily found out, and is well known by etymologists these days. So the question will be whether to keep it or not.
I would keep it. - Others would not. The importance of this is not that great when one instead use a different word covering the meaning of this word very well. - But omitting the use of the word "psychic" as has been the practice in the TS, is not the best - because it degenerates the objects actual meaning and content. A so-called Psychic, is still a Psychic. Even FBI work with them today - and - cannot explain their capabilities, which from time to time are very precise in the helpings. (An example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_detective - To a Christian it is almost heretical television....Smile.)
Where was the word "spiritual" used in the 3rd object??? What year was that?
I am saying....There was no doctrines promoted on behalf of others within the original TS and aught therefore not to be so in the present day theosophical organizations. Also the ULT. Each individual should decide for themselves what they think. I will never seek to remove each indiviudals self-confidence. So therefore any book and any edition can be used - also of the Secret Doctrine - we just have to keep the main aim of altruism at heart if we operate for that cause within a given theosophical organization...These are, however, just my views.
They changed the wording because they did not know better. Or who knows? Or perhaps, they changed them because as good seekers after truth, they follow the old pattern of thinking that changes are necessary, so that it looks like that one is doing and effort, even when such changes are not necessary - or - perhaps not even altruistic, especially when they are not explained to the members of the Society. When one change something basic in an altruistic oriented organization without clearly explaining it to the members, - and especially later members, like today, I get this creepy feeling that one is not altogether quite sincere in ones altrusitic efforts... --- Smile.
Uncomfortable? Who knows? I do honestly not know. I would ask them.
I guess, mostly, it is of less relavance compared to whether the TS failed in the year 1910 and still are haivng trouble with regard to be forwarding the Original Programe as given in 1875-1891...until the fatal change in 1910 or so. - Even when taking the course of evolution of humanity into account with altruism at heart.
All the above are of course just my views. I present them from my heart seeking to promote altruism.
I will gladly change them if someone are able to prove them wrong or
A final note just to say that the word "spiritual" can be found in section 3 of "The Key to Theosophy" when HPB describes the 3rd object of the TS.
"THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY
ENQUIRER. What are the objects of the "Theosophical Society"?
THEOSOPHIST. They are three, and have been so from the beginning. (1.) To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, colour, or creed. (2.) To promote the study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World's religion and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian philosophies. (3.) To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially. These are, broadly stated, the three chief objects of the Theosophical Society."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "paulobaptista_v" <paulobaptista_v@...> wrote:
> Dear friends,
> 1. There is a discussion amongst Portuguese-speaking theosophists about which version of the Secret Doctrine should be used.
> In Portuguese the only available version of the SD is a translation of a version that was edited by Mead and Besant(and I suppose that the same happens in a lot of other idioms). Many accuse this version of having a lot of interpolations, additions and unnecessary corrections.
> It seems that Adyar has abandoned this version in the late seventies and replaced it with the Boris de Zirkoff version.
> I guess that Boris de Zirkoff made some corrections too, but not so controversial as Besant's.
> There is also the fac-simile version. What I would like to ask you is which one would you recommend. The original version of 1888 or the one edited by Boris de Zirkoff?
> 2. Theosophywatch's post of April 12th, has this:
> "The original Third Object was also stated clearly by H. P. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy, Section 3, published in 1889, and reads:
> "To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially."
> Despite the Founder's unambiguous wording, some Theosophical revisionists have chosen to unilaterally remove both the words "`psychic" and "spiritual" from the last Object. Others followed suit, and today a timid, unauthorized and watered-down version is all the public sees. How could this happen with a subject that pervades every major textbook the Teachers wrote, and hundreds of their original articles?"
> The expression "watered-down version" has a link to:
> I noticed that the branches associated with TS Adyar have this version. The Edmonton Theosophical Society and TS-Point Loma too.
> Only ULT mentions "Psychic" and "spiritual".
> So I ask you, at time of HPB's death how was this third goal of the TS written? If the ULT keeps the original wording (and I do not know if this is so), who changed it and why?
> I would like to say that I too agree with Cass. I am not fond of the Besant/Leadbeater literature.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application