Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00157)

Daniel wrote:

> SUBJECT:  Mandukya and/or Mundaka
>
> Attention:  Tony and Paul
>
> *Below* I have compiled together most of Nicholas Week's various
> comments on this subject.  Having carefully reread Nicholas' remarks a
> number of times as well as studying the quoted words in the SD and the
> specific verses in two translations of the Upanishads, I must admit that
> what Nicholas writes makes complete sense to me.
>
> I would appreciate it if both of you would please state explicitly why
> you (appear to) disagree with Nicholas' analysis.  Furthermore, if you
> disagree, how do you explain these 2 passages from the SD?  I am
> certainly open to another reasonable explanation.
>
> Thanking you in advance for your explicit statements.


Thank you for putting time and effort into these questions.

It may not be possible to make anything more explicit.

Will close, therefore, with a few quotes:

"* . . .  “The Vedas have a distinct dual meaning — one expressed by the
literal sense of the words, the other indicated by the metre and the
*swara* —intonation— which are as the life of the Vedas. . . .  Learned
pundits and philologists of course deny that *swara* has anything to do with
philosophy or ancient esoteric doctrines; but the mysterious connection
between *swara* and *light* is one of its most profound secrets.” (T. Subba
Row, Five Years of Theosophy, p. 154.)  See also SD, I, 270.

"It was all foreseen . .  . " (ML's).

"You may be, and most assuredly are our superiors in every branch of
physical knowledge; in spiritual sciences we were, are and always will be
your - MASTERS." (ML's)

Kindest regards,
Paul