Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00035)

>
>R. Taylor------
>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.
>
>TOTALLY D. GREEN------
>Tony, examples please!!

Dear David
Hopefully, just repeated the once is enough!

Examples re: "mispellings" have been given before in relation to the
original SD and the BdeZ SD.  These two are given in an attempt to
illustrate a point of view.

In the "Occult Catechism" (pp. 11-12 Proem) MANVANTARA is spelt in 2
different ways.  These are standardised to the one spelling in the BdeZ SD.
As it was put to me, are they spelled differently, because one is referring
to the ROOT MANU, the other to the SEED MANU?
It is an interesting observation and promotes lines of thought, which
otherwise may have been glossed over.  
Some of us study the SD with the approach, why is it spelled differently?
Others that one spelling must be wrong, and thus altering it, as has been
done in the case of the BdeZ SD.

Another e.g., which has been given before:  Disk on page 1 (Proem) becomes
disc on page 4.  They are given the same spelling in the BdeZ SD.
Disk on page 1 could relate to Kosmos
On page 4 to cosmos, thus the symbols illustrated. 
The difference between Kosmos and cosmos is explained on page 3. 
Should we be making these alterations to what is clearly seen as mispellings
in the BdeZ edition?

When we make alterations, are we able to cover all the angles?  Thus the
remarks/question made to Richard, to which he has given interesting replies,
about the numerological aspect.  It seemed, that if we altered the spellings
of the Sanskrit words, etc., it may also alter the numerical values,
something we may very well be ignorant of. And for this reason the concern
about altering them.  As I understand it, he is saying by correcting the
spellings (of the Sanskrit) it will be also correcting the numerological
aspects as well.  

This mail is certainly not written for reasons of respect, as from previous
experience it can bring the opposite.

It is not written for you to agree with in any way, and can appreciate it
has no place in your approach to Theosophy, and the the study of the
Theosophical writings.

It is just another point of view, and the more points of view there are the
better, but once the writings themselves are altered, it becomes that
persons viewpoint.

Hopefully this makes things clearer?

Tony



-- 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.