Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00131)

>In the email below, Tony writes:
>
>"Don't you mean incorrect?

That how it is in the B de Z eidtion is incorrect.
>It is interesting what you say, but only correct as far as you (and some
>others) are concerned.

Crystallised and finished with?"
That you have decided that how Boris de Z has it is correct, rather than
leaving it open.
>
>Please expand on this.  What are you getting at?
>
>In your opinion why is Nicholas' point not correct?  Why is
>it incorrect in your opinion?

For the reasons given that were in the quotes from the SD that came with
this mail.
>
>What do you mean by "crystallised and finished with?"?

That you have decided Boris de Z is correct, and that it is wrong in the
original SD.
>
>You and Paul seem to talk in some kind of code.
>
>Please expand on your points.

>> SD II, p.22 (end of footnote): "The teaching is offered as it is understood;
>> and as there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory,
>> that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical
>> aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical."
>>
>> SD II p.68 (f.n.): "This difference and the change of cyphers in the last
>> three triplets of figures, the writer cannot undertake to account for.
>> According to every calculation, once the three hundred millions are
>> subtracted, the figures ought to stand, 1, 655, 884, 687.  But they are
>> given as stated in the Tamil calendar above-named and as they were
>> translated."
>> It may be necessary to turn to the text in the SD to understand this better.
>

Even though the figures don't add (or is it subtract) up, (in that
mathematical sense) they are given as stated, rather than being
altered/"corrected."

Tony