SD & ISIS question

[Scott Sands]

I have Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine. Isis came out first, right? Is SD just a rewrite of Isis? What I'm wondering is, if I'm going to read one, should I just read SD since it is suppose to be a better version of Isis?

[Konstantin Zaitzev]

Though SD was planned as an improved version of IU, they turned out to be quite different books. Only SD vol.3 bears some reseblance with IU vol.1, as in the initial plan it was intended to be SD vol.1
I've heard about the abridged 1-volumed version of IU, issued by the Quest Books (with HPB in a hat on the cover). Probably you'd better to read this and only then proceed to the SD. So you could save your time and have a needed introducion. SD is surely not the book to begin with.

[Scott Sands]

Thank you Konstantin. I was actually hoping to read both, but didn't what to rehash the majority of one in the other.

[Jack Donaldson]

Isis Unveiled is more enjoyable reading, but the Secret Doctrine seems to go deeper into the body of knowledge she wanted to illustrate. They say about the latter, it is not a book to simply read from the beginning to end, but the former fits this description more so, or perhaps I should correct myself and simply state the IU is more about arguing all the dogmatic beliefs filled with accusations. I especially appreciated the content in vol. I on pages 76 and 77.

It seems she is busy 'kicking butt' in the Isis Unveiled volumes, whereas the SD seems more about dispensing knowledge. I should say that I read the "SD" through G de Purucker and his two volume "The Esoteric Tradition" while reading the "SD" only on occasion. My preference for "IU" would then be unfair since I actually read most of it, while occasionally going to the "SD".

[Nabil Naser]

I have no way of answering that question, but I want share with you something.
I started with the Secret Doctrine before I was even aware of Theosophy. At the time I was Gobbling up any books that dealt with religion, philosophy, theology and similar subjects.
The Secret Doctrine is a great book, and it has changed my perspective of life and the universe.
Should have I read Iris Revealed first? That is a question I can't answer. I still haven't read Iris Revealed, although I have read many quotes from it.

I say go for the Secret Doctrine, and try to understand the Stanza's of Dyzan.

[Brother Bruce]

HPB herself critiqued Isis Unveiled:
Theosophy article: "My Books" by Blavatsky:


He asked Blavatsky what were the best Theosophical works for him to read, and had declared his intention of procuring Isis Unveiled, when to his astonishment she replied, "Don't read it, it is all trash."
Now I did not say "trash" so far as I remember; but what I did say in substance was: "Leave it alone; Isis will not satisfy you. Of all the books I have put my name to, this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most confused."

I read it from time to time. In parts it's like "Ripley's Believe it or Not!"- particularly the sections on the Indian Rope Trick, the power of the mind over animals and the power of the mind in pregnancy.

Some sections are a tad dated but it is still a fun read.

Coleman found a lot of "borrowed" material:

The Sources of Madame Blavatsky's Writings by William Emmette Coleman.

Answered by Cranston:

Quote:
Book of Dzyan - Wikipedia
In her biography H.P.B.: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Cranston tackles the claim of plagiarism that was leveled by Coleman (Cranston, op.cit. Chapter 12, p 379-387). Her view is that HPB's "plagiarism" appears to consist mainly of quoting primary sources without acknowledging the secondary sources from which they came. She states that a research assistant of hers took on the task of finding Coleman's alleged 70 passages that HPB plagiarized from World-Life, and could only find 6. Coleman himself, far from being an authority on occult material, was a clerk in the Quartermaster Department of the US Army. He was likely not an impartial judge, having written to Coues on July 8, 1890, "I emphatically denounced and ridiculed the theory of occultism, of elementary spirits, etc., before the Theosophical Society was organized [in 1875], and from that time to this I have strenuously opposed Theosophy all the time." [3] Coleman promised to publish a book that would "prove" his charges against Blavatsky regarding the Book of Dzyan; this book and its proof never appeared. [4]

I do believe the Book of Dyzan is genuine.

[Brother Bruce]

Here is one of Rudolf Steiner's critiques of 'The Secret Doctrine'.
"… Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism was soon recognized as of the work of the spiritual dilettante, a compendium of old, badly understood esoteric bits and pieces. But it was less easy to find access to a phenomenon of the period such as Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine. For this work did at least reveal in many places that much of its content had its origins in real, powerful impulses from the spiritual world. The book expressed a large number of ancient truths which have been gained through egotistic clairvoyance in distant ages of mankind. People thus encountered in the outside world, not from within themselves, something which could be described as an uncovering of a tremendous wealth of wisdom which mankind at once possessed as something exceptionally illuminating. This was interspersed with unbelievable passages which never ceased to amaze, because the book is a sloppy and dilettantish piece of work as regards any sort of methodology, and includes superstitious nonsense and much more. In short, Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine is a peculiar book: the great truths side-by-side with terrible rubbish."

Rudolf Steiner. "The Anthroposophic Movement." Bristol: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993. Page 23. Translated by Christian von Arnim. (Lecture of June 10th, 1923).

[Mark Newbold]

First we must understand that Steiner's Anthroposophy is Theosophy w/ a Christocentric belief system. His "Esoteric Science: An Outline" is essentially the 'Secret Doctrine' w/ a Christian veneer. In Brother Bruce's quote from Steiner, the truth is Sinnett was neither an intellectual nor truly an enlightened man. With him we see a true spiritual materialist as to his comprehensive of Theosophy. Reading his biographical monograph he comes across as a self-absorbed bore. In this I agree w/ Steiner that 'dilettante' describes him well.

Steiner struggles to oddly both denigrate & praise the SD. His German romantic idealist world view is seen through the influence of Goethe and a Manichean esoteric Christianity. He was enough of a man of integrity to not completely deny his debt to the SD. This lecture from 1923 was ten years after severing his association w/ the TS and the founding of his Western Rosicrucian theosophy known as Anthroposophy. I therefore see Steiner's attempt at criticism of the SD as invalid and probably sour grapes.

[Brother Bruce]

Hi Mark,
I am interested to know, have you read the Secret Doctrine? I mean read it, cover to cover?

[Mark Newbold]

The SD in my opinion is not a work meant to be read as other books in a linear fashion, from beginning to end. Also, I personally found working & studying Anthropogenesis initally more approachable and only later moved into Cosmogenesis. As Judge so aptly captured the idea of the "ocean" of theosophy that certainly captures the vastness of the SD. As to the mental approach for studying the SD, I conjure up Steiner's suggestions for moving our thinking from the sensible to the supersensible- by imagination, inspiration and intuition as helpful in comprehension.

To answer your question- since 1974 I have worked with the SD and yes over the course of those years I have read it probably several times over. I have however never insulted the SD or myself by treating it like any other book by way of a linear approach to it.

I also worked with & studied the books & lectures of Steiner as well, I was briefly involved in the Camphill movement founded by Dr. Karl Konig. As well as lectured on the contrasts between Theosophy & Anthroposophy to members of the TS.

I concur with you on the authenticity of the Book of Dyzan.

[Brother Bruce]

Hi Mark,
How do you feel about this critique of Isis Unveiled:
"He said that he had asked Mdme. Blavatsky what were the best Theosophical works for him to read, and had declared his intention of procuring Isis Unveiled, when to his astonishment she replied, "Don't read it, it is all trash."

Now I did not say "trash" so far as I remember; but what I did say in substance was: "Leave it alone; Isis will not satisfy you. Of all the books I have put my name to, this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most confused." And I might have added with as much truth that, carefully analysed from a strictly literary and critical standpoint, Isis was full of misprints and misquotations; that it contained useless repetitions, most irritating digressions, and to the casual reader unfamiliar with the various aspects of metaphysical ideas and symbols, as many apparent contradictions; that much of the matter in it ought not to be there at all and also that it had some very gross mistakes due to the many alterations in proof-reading in general, and word corrections in particular. Finally, that the work, for reasons that will be now explained, has no system in it; and that it looks in truth, as remarked by a friend, as if a mass of independent paragraphs having no connection with each other, had been well shaken up in a waste-basket, and then taken out at random and--published."

I'd like to discuss The Secret Doctrine with you later. "Not linear", yes that is inherent in its structure. Is has been my experience that very few theosophists have read it- even those of longstanding holding positions of authority in the Society.

[Mark Newbold]

Brother Bruce,

The question of how theosophists should approach Isis is still a matter of great debate- is it a "rough draft" of the SD? This among many other theories abound. Michael Gomes' abridgment of Isis was the first time for me to read it. The HPB quote you offer seems to indicate that Isis was superseded by the SD even in her eyes.

What do you base your statement that few leaders in the TS have read the SD? I look forward to future conversations.

[Janeth]

Re: "Reply by Brother Bruce 1 hour ago - Here is one of Rudolf Steiner's critiques of 'The Secret Doctrine'..."<---Considering the time and circumstances and extremely difficult all around challenges Madame H.P. Blavatsky faced over a century ago, my common sense, perception and intuition tell me Rudolf Steiner's sentiments were way off the mark.

He who is smart, kind, altruistic, truly knowledgeable and appreciative of the great work Mdme. H.P. Blvatsky did on behalf of society in general, cannot help but to feel, borrowing the words of whoever it was who wrote the following, as far as I am concerned, I can only feel the same way H.P.B. felt "..., she is moved as much by a felling of contempt for the narrow-mindedness, ignarance and bigotry of her adversaries as by a feeling of fatigue with such warrisome inanities."

From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank Dr. John Algeo, his wife, and the long list of TS members volunteers who made it possible for Dr. Algeo to translate Mdme. H.P.B's letters creating the book "The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky", Volune I, 1861 - 1879, available at the TSA's Publishing House on-line by visiting www.theosophical.org or by sending an e-mail at-

[e-mail]

and/or telephoning the Krotona School of Theosophy Bookshop, located in Ojai, California, at [phone]

Last but not least, in the interests of TC visitors around the world and newcomers to Theosophy I would respectfully direct your attention to better and inspiring Theosophical subjects by visiting the TC-wall of Odin Townley;

http://theosophical.ning.com/profile/OdinTownley?xg_source=profiles...

click on "Blog Posts" and/or "Discussions" and you may get to leave the TC for the day feeling your time and energy was wisely spent!! -:)