Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00039)

Dear Tony,

Those are two really good examples from the Secret Doctrine of what you are
getting at.  The difference in spelling *is* interesting in the context that
you put it.  It may be nothing.  It may be something.  The point is that
once the spelling of the words is standardised, the student has no
opportunity to reflect on, to question, the significance of the difference.

Thanks,

Peter


> 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.
>


-- 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.