Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00148)

In a message dated 1/12/99 7:58:45 PM, Richtay@aol.com writes:

>In a message dated 1/11/99 8:19:20 AM, Leon wrote:
>
><<Theosophy cannot be argued against, since it is based on a book written
>more than 8,000 years ago which rests on fundamental principles that either
>have to be accepted or not as being valid.  >>
>
>I wish I could be sure of the existence of the book or the date of its
>writing.  Actually, I suspect that *none* of us know anything, really,
>about the true original or nature of the Stanzas of Dzyan.  We can only take
>HPB on faith here, or deny.

I don't think the Book of Dzyan must be taken on faith "only". . .  Since the
Stanzas themselves, if carefully studied line by line and understood (by
correlating all the commentaries on them by HPB) exactly conforms to and is
consistent with the Three Fundamental Principles.  In particular, there is a
close correlation of its numerology with the Second Principle.  Also, they
contain the fundamental conceptual geometry behind all the derivative laws of
nature (based on fundamental spin or absolute abstract cyclic motion
underlying all subsequent phenomenal vibratory motion) which, in turn,
underlies and presages all the modern and post modern scientific discoveries
since Einstein intuited E=mc^2 directly from the evolutionary paths and
numerological formulas presented in the stanzas, and further clarified in the
commentaries.  It is also possible, based on careful study of the SD, that
Einstein derived his new mathematics of Tensor Analysis from certain
suggestions made by HPB in the commentaries.  (Else, why would Einstein have
had that well worn and margin notated SD on his desk during his entire time in
America and at his bedside when he died? **)

Best wishes,

Leon
**
<A HREF="http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
">http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html</A>