Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00133)

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

In the context of the study at the time of writing there certainly did seem
to be a connection (with a question mark, that is, which was put in).  The 2
volumes of the SD; Cosmogenesis/Anthropogenesis.  Yes, why not a relation to
the dual nature of Manas?
Surely you can also see that these kind of things can't always be spelled
out.  By their very nature they tend to be more in.  If all psychologists
understood something about reincarnation, think what a difference it would
make.  It would be very difficult to prove reincarnation to them.
>
>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.

Numbers are apparently universal.

  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.

When studying the SD in a group someone may say the page is not numbered.
Is there a reason?  HPB died in her 60th year.  60 is important in relation
to cycles, etc....The page actually starts with "Measure......"
What is wrong in this kind of observation?  It kind of emphasises the number.
Numbers are apparently universal.......
 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.

Why it is the only sloka (Stanza I, sloka 1) in quotation marks.  Must be
interesting?  Surely they weren't added by mistake?  But why take them out?
The alterations may not effect the way you want to study, but what about
other students who may have a different approach to you?

>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.

With the SD, if this helps some students in ferreting out the deeper
meaning, what is wrong in that?  Just because you don't want to do it, or
can find no sense in it, why deny it to others?  Through studying HPBs
writings, the spelling of words is important.  So are numbers important?
>
>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.

Don't you think others on the list TRY and do the same.  That is what is
good about group study, students do things differently and can all add
something.  In one group, for example, when an elderly lady was there, who
never said anything, the study always had that something extra to it.

Best wishes

Tony