Re: SD & Sanscrit
May 31, 1998 11:59 AM
by Dallas TenBroeck
About Indexes: Yes I tried using the "original Index at the back
of Vol. 2 of SD, but it is so spotty -- so much is left out.
Then as I read I began building, as I always, do -- my own Index.
Then I discovered that there were others who had made up indexes
so I started using them, and adding to them, and I am still doing
that as I go along.
No I had not noticed that xxx and the other "coincidences" you
I did find out something that is interesting : Let me share it
and see if it is not too "far-fetched" :
ISIS Vol. I , p 30 bottom. The cycles of the Saros, Naros and
Sossus are given.
[ respectively: 3,600; 600; and 60 years each ]
We are told that the Sidereal year is approximately 25,868 years
[ One reference to this period is in the OCEAN, p. 121. ]
HPB in a footnote to THE ESOTERIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS
(Footnote at bottom of either p. 1 or p. 2 of the article --
"Lucifer" Dec. 1887-Feb. 1888) speaks of the cycle of 2,155
years that marks the passage of the Sun through one sign of the
She also indicates there that this event is due "at the end of
this century" -- perhaps the period 1897/98 which she and Judge
mentioned in other articles. [ 2,155 x 12 = 25860 years ]
Suppose that we take Years x 6
6 Saros . . . . 3,600 x 6 = 21,600
6 Neros . . . . 600 x 6 = 3,600
6 Sossus . . . . 60 x 6 = 360
Total . . . . . . . . 25,560
years (pretty close)
7 x Saros ( 3,600) = 25,200
+ 1 Neros . . . . 600
+ 1 Sossus . . . . 60
Total . . . . . 25,860
But this is not "666"
So I wondered if the " 666 " had any residual warning -- a
connotation that carried forward as a tradition ( without exact
explanation) which would warn the "wise," who would remember the
times and periods of cyclic time, that this was a date around
which one could expect cataclysms ?
I have also noted that our geologists and archaeologists seem to
have noted a volcanic cycle that leaves traces of its
manifestation every 23,000 years.
Some other suggestive ( though not exact) references I found are
SD II 617 fn Cycle of the Phoenix
SD I 314, 435, 649; II 331, 432
HPB Article "Ancient Doctrines Vindicated" "Theosophist, May
1881 -- end of article; ( ULT 3 Vol Edn. of HPB Articles: Vol
3, p. 78 )
LUCIFER, Vol. IV,p. 27-31
Have you found anything along those lines ? Dallas
> From: "Alpha (Tony)" <email@example.com>
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 12:02 PM
> 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
>>of it, it is like peeling an onion, I find some meanings that I
>>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
>>changes made in it).
>Do you use the original index? There is something very
>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.
>something interesting about Aanroo. Just pronouncing it for
>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
>indexes, can be restricting and can make for a rather unfluid
>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.
>neglecting the other facets, "growth" becomes lop-sided.
>Recently there has been a discussion about Sanskrit. English is
>compared to Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the language of the gods.
>softness, its compassion, the pronounciation/sound and the
>by that, surely have a beneficient effect on humanity? It is a
>see it just as a language, without taking into consideration its
>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
>should all be learning Sanskrit, but to ackowledge it, rather
>dismissing it. Using Sanscrit IS helping humanity. Using
>Theosophy easier to understand. Using English makes it harder!
>Sanskrit is not about scholars. Some are very good at defacing
>making it difficult. It has a lot to do with Spiritual Beings.
>why the Mahatmas and HPB and others use Sanskrit. It is not a
>language, but rather a living entity? Like everything else, it
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application