Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00117)

Tony Maddock writes:

> It is difficult to be sure what you mean by challenge YOUR OWN assertions.
>
> The point where this seems to have started, is the fact that the SD was
> published in 2 volumes in 1888.
> Are you actually challenging this?
> A reasonable statement was made with regard to study: is there a connection
> between the SD being in 2 volumes: Cosmogenesis/Anthropogenesis, and the
> dual nature of manas.  A possible reason for it being in 2 volumes is
> karmic, cyclic, etc?
> As you haven't really addressed this it seems that you assert that there
> isn't a connection?  That is fine, but some see that there is.  Some see the
> inverted commas.  Others don't.....  Some see the disc,  see that the
> original edition of the SD is significant,  see that the date 1888 is
> significant,  see the fact that the page number from page 60 is missing,
> ...others don't.

Daniel Caldwell replies:

Tony, you wrote:

>the SD was
> published in 2 volumes in 1888.
> Are you actually challenging this?

No.  Never said I challenged it.  The historical evidence is pretty
solid that the SD was published in 2 volumes in 1888.


Again , you asked me:

>is there a connection
> between the SD being in 2 volumes: Cosmogenesis/Anthropogenesis, and the
> dual nature of manas.  A possible reason for it being in 2 volumes is
> karmic, cyclic, etc? > As you haven't really addressed this it seems that you assert that there
> isn't a connection?

Well, I don't really know.  There may or may not be a connection. For
all I know, your questions may be totally irrelevant.  I find it hard to
know exactly what you are "getting at".  And why does there HAVE TO BE a
connection between the SD being in 2 volumes and the dual nature of
Manas?  Isis Unveiled was also in two volumes and it was published in
1877.  Do those facts have something to do with the dual nature of
Manas?

If you think there is a connection, then please spell it out for me and
the rest of the subscribers on Theos-talk.

Again you write:

>Some see the
> inverted commas.  Others don't.....  Some see the disc,  see that the
> original edition of the SD is significant,  see that the date 1888 is
> significant,  see the fact that the page number from page 60 is missing,
> ...others don't.

Maybe there is some occult numerical significance to the fact that the
SD was published in 1888.  Maybe not.  I'm just grateful that the SD was
published whether the date of publication was 1888, 1887, 1889 or
whenever.  Instead of finding some sort of significance to these
numbers, I'm more interested in studying the universal ideas contained
in the volumes, but I don't confine myself to just the study of HPB's
SD.  I find that all 10,000+ pages of her writings contain a wealth of
knowledge, wisdom, insight, etc.  You may like contemplating the
significance of why p. 60 in Vol. I of the SD is not numbered.  I had
rather comtemplate what HPB actually wrote and the ideas behind her
words, than speculate on why a number is missing, or why a verse is in
quotation marks, etc.  When I study HPB's writings plus the Mahatma
Letters, I don't focus on the layout of the pages, the number of lines
per page, the strange spellings of words (whether they be typos or not),
etc. etc.

Instead I try to understand the teachings of Theosophy and how they help
to illuminate the problems and mysteries of life around each and
everyone of us.

That is not to say that I don't appreciate symbols, etc.  I love the
symbology given in the opening pages of the Proem.  And I have done a
great deal of study of such symbols as found in mythology, religion,
mathematics and other related fields.