Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00364)

Dear Spencer:

There is a methodological problem when we look at numbers to see if they mean
something, or when we look at words as if they were (and this is the unexplained
presupposition) a proyection of numbers.

It should be of much interest that we can learn the Sacred Science of Numerology.
But if we want to do that, we must have some things clear, or we will have the risk
of playing with numbers and meanings, with no trust about if we are "discovering"
something or we are simply making an absurd.

We need to know fundamental questions about the epistemology of the sacred science
of the numerology.  I mean the following.

Clear must be for us the proceedings and the nature of the numerological reasoning.
We must know if it is inductive, deductive, if it presupposes metafisical,
cosmological, ontological and/or anthropological  truths -like the reasoning of the
Theology, for example-, or if, instead of that, and in the contrary, it is the
instrument, not of showing, but of discovering or searching those truths -like the
reasoning of the occidental philosophy, or the reasoning of the social sciences, for
example-.

We must know the nature of the numbers, and the nature of mathematical operations
(+, -, X, and so on) when we are making numerology, and the nature oh numbers and
operations, when we need to know how much money do we have now, or when we are
making a plane of a house, or when we are studiyng mathematics in a University.
Numbers may be (and I think it is so) very diferent entities in in those two kind of
circumnstances.

Numbers may be, in the first case, nothing but symbols, things that we use as we
could use colours, or sounds, or pictures, or whatever else, with the presupposed
purpose of meaning something, and, over all, the presupposed knoweledge of (i) the
truths, the philosophy, the facts, that we want to express in pictures (or in
numbers), and (ii) the code, the key of lecture.

In the other cases, numbers are what we know they are since our chilhood.  The other
cases are all cases of a non sacred use of numbers.

Let me analyze two cases:

(A) Truth -('-' as meaning equal to) 9+7+0+9+7 - 32 - 3+2 - 5
      Light - 2+8+6+7+9 - 32 - 3+2+ - 5
      Buddha - ...

      Do we  remember?

And now:

(B)  Spencer - 9+7+0+9+7 - 32 - 3+2 - 5
       Stupid   - 1+2+3+7+0+4 - 17 - 8

Do we remember?

What do we have to learn?

The absurd of the situation (B) is obvious, because we cannot think that when we put
together those two words, we are having on mind a philosophy or a learned
(meaningful) code.

The situation (A) is exactly the same.  You said, "Meaningful?  I don´t know.
Meaningless?  Perhaps".  So, there was no presupposed philosophy or fact, and there
was no presupposed learned sacred code.

Neither in (A) or in (B) we can find numerology.

In the case (B), when we try, ex-post, to find some resultant idea or fact, as if we
were trying to make a "dicovery", we are clearly having the proof that we are being
arbitrary.  We will be able to find, for example, one hundred facts or ideas as a
result of our particular association of ideas.

Did the words contained one of those hundred of results? Did the words contained
them all?  Let´s do the exercise in another list of discussion and there will be a
lot of other resultant facts or ideas.  Did the words contained one or all of them,
or many only?  Not the words, but our minds.

If (A) and (B) are the same case of non-numerology, why the case (B) would seem, to
any people, to be different.  Not because the numerological menaning of those words,
spoken or taken in a group wihout the neccesary presuppositions.  Just the
semantical meaning.  Something totally different.

The semantical meaning (or whatever other psicological impression), AND the THE
SUSPECT.

The suspect that nothing happens without a purpose (not only an explanation: the
cause effect law; also a purpose).

But still more (tough never expressed): a purpose appeared, at least, in our zone of
life (in the phenomenological meaning), our zone of benees, the world of our
consciousnees.

The ATTITUDE that all what happens me, means something in front of me.  The attitude
that we could call: ALL WHAT HAPPENS IS A FUNCTION OF ME.

And we could remember, then, that it is said that Nature is a Lesson, that God is
Everywhere, that the Master understands the Language of the World, and so on.

The mentioned attitude may show some kind of philosophy to be legitimated, as we are
seen.  But I don´t think that this legitimation is a right one.

Nature is a Lesson, God is Everywhere, and a Master understands the Language of
World, but as every sacred or esoteric truth, these statements may be understood
with spiritual intelligence, or may be disunderstood with ordinary non receptive
simple reasoning.

Swami Vivekananda said in "Los Yogas Prácticos" (in spanish) that Nature certainly
teaches, but only to those who are spiritually capable to understand.

So, if we may still get confused about the case (B), it is because we have the
mentioned ATTITUDE, but not the ALTITUDE.

The desire of feeling oneself realized makes us live easily the egocentric SUSPECT,
the attitude.

This is something dangerous.  As dangerous is in the same way the easy spiritualism
of the New Age Thinking, a complex but not very rational mix of feelings and ideas
that offer the actual man the sensation of realization at hand here and now.

Friendly,

DAVID C.

Spencer escribió:

> Wow, synchroncity is real.  Was just reading something when e-mails from both
> Leon and Bart arrived.
>
> The wise scholar hears of the Tao,
> And practises it ardently.
> The mediocre scholar hears of the Tao,
> And thinks of it rarely.
> The worthless student hears of the Tao,
> And laughs boisterously.
> If such did not laugh,
> Tao would not be Tao.
>
> Lao Tzu
>
> Spencer Kellogg
>
> LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote:
>
> > As I implied in my last post on this distortion of the original thread...
> > This nonsense is not "theosophical principles and their relationship to
> > science.
> >
> > To end it all, here's the original root of all this ridiculous speculation
> > about "nothing" (0) -- that has no place in a theosophical forum except to
> > confuse every "one" (1)... Especially any scientists who might be listening
> > in. ;-)
> >
> > "Fe, phi, fo, fum" (said the Giant) "I smell the blood of an Englishman"
> > (speaking of Jack the Giant killer)
> >
> > LHM :-)
>


-- 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.