Re: On Our Written Literature
Jan 28, 1995 02:44 PM
by Dr. A.M.Bain
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com writes:
> A suggestion re editing HPB
> When I read Chaucer in high school, I read the original, & what
> was hard to understand was translated and/or explained in
> footnotes. That way I got Chaucer in the original, & if needed,
> could consult the footnotes for better understanding. Why can't
> we do the same with HPB? It's done with "The Voice of The
> Silence". I wouldn't know what Migmar was, unless I had the
It's a d*** sight easier without footnotes [or even fotnotes].
Some might like to consider the *abridged* edition of the SD
which exists, and often the first look into HPB for some of
lesser courage. Don't get me wrong - I have actually read most
of the SD, and all of Isis Unveiled - from which I got the most,
BTW. In an abridged edition, who do we flame (no doubt in this
case via a spiritualist medium) about their choice of omissions?
If anyone wants to remove the many tirades against sundry
professors in the SD, I for one won't mind. :-)
I first ran study groups in Kabbalah [then written Qabalah, as
the 'magicians' write it now] in 1958. The first book students
were told was mandatory reading - if they wanted to get anywhere,
was ~First Principles of Theosophy~ by Jinarajadasa. Still, IMO,
the best intro to modern theosophy that there is. Sadly this is
not kept regularly in print - so if you're reading this in your
silence at Wheaton, maybe you could get Quest to republish?
Come on, Wheaton, we know you are lurking somehere on the list, as
firstname.lastname@example.org is in the list of subscribers - how about some
"Gad, Sir, this means chakras at dawn!"
AB -- email@example.com
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application