Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00027)

In a message dated 2/3/99 12:52:57 PM, Tony wrote:

<<but do you, when making these
corrections, also consider the "numerical value of the letters composing the
word... &c. &c." referred to in the Subba Row quote?  To just look at the
spelling on its own is only one aspect, whereas there are many others to
consider.  Once the spelling is altered, the numerical values, &c., &c.
change.  >>

Tony, I confess once again that I really don't get what you're aiming at here,
but I'll take Peter's tack and be nice about it.  Subba Row is referring to
actual Sanskrit words, correctly spelled, which can by transformation point to
other Sanskrit words, correctly spelled.  This is because Sanskrit, like
Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and other "sacred languages" (languages in which
Scriptures were orally handed down) uses letters for both sounds and numerals.
Mis-spell a word, and you have lost the inner meaning of it.

Of what possible value would it be to publish around mis-spelled words, when
the correct Sanskrit or other spelling is perfectly known?  Are you suggesting
that HPB deliberately mis-spelled words in order to communicate in a
numerological code?  I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this,
but *only if they include an example or two.*  Otherwise it is pure
speculation, and no sound reason to perpetuate ignorance.  

I will add that it is a matter of fact that many words HPB spelt phonetically,
particularly Tibetan words like *bDe-wa-can* (Devachan) and *rGyud-sDe* (Kiu-
Ti) because they would be unpronounceable by the layman.  Are you suggesting
that her phonetic spellings are equally a numerological code?

Examples?

Rich

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.