Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00515)

May 28th 1998

Dear Tony:

        Re:  Use of INDEXES

I have found for myself that most indexes reflect the mind of the
person that created them, and some are very minutely careful and
others are discursive.

I use Indexes to get a general idea of what is available.  A
"search engine" draws attention to the same word used anywhere in
the text.

But to search for IDEAS -- that is something else.  Especially
when dealing with HPB one finds that she is discussing one
ancient system and showing how those expressions are mirrors, or
relate closely to some other system with a different
terminology -- if at that time we don't trace the relationship
and mark our own INDEX we may lose as valuable correspondence for
future use.

INDEXES are assistants at best.  John Van Mater has brought out a
very good one on the SD in which he incorporated the best
features of as many of the SD Indexes as were available to him,
and in addition went several times through the S D so as to add
what he had found relevant.  In some cases he indicates synonyms.
But for myself using his Index I have had to add as I go along
some additional references .

Study is always constructive, and not held in place by Indexes.
You are right in that.

Best wishes,            Dallas


PS

A comment on the codes that may be embodied in SD -- I too
noticed those strange numerical and auditory coincidences.  Those
who are skilled in making those comparisons will have a field-day
if they apply themselves to that kind of research.        Dal.

> Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 12:02 PM
> From: "Alpha (Tony)" <alpha@dircon.co.uk>
> Subject: SD & Sanscrit

>W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
>>Yes I am of the opinion that the S D contains a code that will
>>open the understanding to "deeper" levels of the philosophy
>>presented there.  Every time I go back to read or study
portions
>>of it, it is like peeling an onion, I find some meanings that I
>>overlooked earlier.
>>
>>I use two large INDEXES to the SD (Original 1888 Edition) and
>>have not troubled myself with the 1893 edition for a long time
>>once that I found it (in my esteem) to be faulty (because of
the
>>changes made in it).
>
>Do you use the original index?  There is something very
interesting about
>it. It is xxx pages.  Each page is in 3 columns.  That is 90
columns in all.
>The index starts with Aanroo, and is the only one to do so.
There is
>something interesting about Aanroo.  Just pronouncing it for
example.  As
>you feel there are embedded occult keys in the SD, why shouldn't
it apply to
>the index too?
>
>xxx could translate in many ways.
>
>The whole thing of using indexes, or perhaps it should be
over-using
>indexes, can be restricting and can make for a rather unfluid
approach.
>
>One very positive thing the SD offers is all round growth.  It
is very easy
>to get interested in a particular "occult" facet, say telepathy.
When
>neglecting the other facets, "growth" becomes lop-sided.
>
>Recently there has been a discussion about Sanskrit.  English is
hard
>compared to Sanskrit.  Sanskrit is the language of the gods.
Its
>softness, its compassion, the pronounciation/sound and the
colours produced
>by that, surely have a beneficient effect on humanity?  It is a
mistake to
>see it just as a language, without taking into consideration its
other
>facets. Using  Sanskrit also helps humanity, and also helps
those who use it
>to go within.  It is the language of the within.  This is not to
say we
>should all be learning Sanskrit, but to ackowledge it, rather
than
>dismissing it.  Using Sanscrit IS helping humanity.  Using
Sanskrit makes
>Theosophy easier to understand.  Using English makes it harder!
>Sanskrit is not about scholars.  Some are very good at defacing
it and
>making it difficult.  It has a lot to do with Spiritual Beings.
That is
>why the Mahatmas and HPB and others use Sanskrit.  It is not a
dead
>language, but rather a living entity?   Like everything else, it
is subject
>to cycles.
>
>Tony