Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00176)

Dear Tony,

Your comments on SD quote were very polite and thoughtful.  I'm glad you
shared with me your feelings regarding the nature of the differences and
appreciate something within you that calls for clarity and accuracy.
However, what we have neglected to do is compare both versions with the
book they were taken from, the ANUGITA.

I think my reluctance to take a stand on any issue of the SD relates to my
regard for people in general, who take action many times without
explanation.  No one is available to tell me why changes were made and
there is no one to ask.  Likewise, I don't FEEL any different about the
version you gave.  You mentioned that there was a "flow" to the verbatim
edition and a "distinction" of names, but I really can't put either version
into "distinct" interpretations.  They both would be interpreted the same
by me, which would be to appreciate the glimpse into an Eastern work of
note, and to mark that this work is available for study if I am interested.
 There is no guarantee that you could acquire the ANUGITA easily at your
public library or that the translation you acquired would agree with either
of the versions in the SDs.

Still my appreciation for others who gently guide us as students, such as
yourself, is immensely overpowering to any difficulty I might be having
comparing texts.  I certainly want to make things easier for you, if
possible, so please add your comments regarding the differences as often as
you like, because I think other members here might also feel the same way
you do and I kind of wonder why I don't.  I think it is the variance in
purpose for our reading and what it is we intend to do with the reading,
etc.  Things like that aren't at issue, but we can see how qualities and
notes are struck in us with regard to how things should be done.  It's just
I never am given a role of deciding things for other people, and so I tend
to be rather lazy, inefficient, and shrug off any thoughts requiring too
much time or work on my part and too little reward.

The picture one gets reading either version is that within us are worlds to
try to cognize and energies may be present one moment and gone the next.

It's funny that there is a footnote which describes another's opinion
regarding the quote as this: "This is explained by the able translator of
ANUGITA in a footnote (p.258) in these words: "The sense appears to be
this; the course of worldly life is due to the operations of the lifewinds
which are attached to the Self, and lead to its manifestations as
individual souls."

Now, I didn't get this sense at all. Why would one swallowing up energy be
able to manifest as an individual soul?  I can understand a sevenfold flame
that is the self, but why all these lifewinds competing with one another? I
guess if the lifewinds are swallowed enough times, a new birth is
produced.!?  I suppose that could be one point.

In the original edition, too, the words are quite suggestive of  this event
occurring while man is in form existence:

>"Within the body, in the midst of all these life-winds (? principles), which
>move about in the body, and swallow up one another,* blazes the Vaishvana
>fire+ seven-fold, of which 'I' am the goal," says the Brahmana.#"

All I know is that if we could have guests in our bodies, they would be
existing there beside the flame of self, and they could be discernable,
otherwise how would Brahmana know that the life-winds engulf each other.

I would love to hear your interpretation of the substance of the quote.

Brenda

Visit my webpage at http://www.webspawner.com/users/ascension