Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00369)

Consider this:

On page 108 of Cosmogenesis, about 1/3 of the way down the page there is a phrase.
"Dzyu becomes Fohat."  This appears to be in relation to Stanza V of Cosmogenesis and
the comment made, (b); "takes three, and five, and seven strides..."  According to the
chart one was given,

Dzyu = 3 + 5 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3

becomes = 1 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 0 + 4 + 8 = 23 = 2 + 3 = 5

Fohat = 5 + 4 + 7 + 0 + 9 = 25 = 2 + 5 = 7

There has been no speculation, merely some simple calculations done using a chart one
was given where letters of the alphabet correspond to the numbers 1-9 and 0.  On page
113 of Book I of Cosmogenesis, at the bottom of the page, is a commentary on the
numbers 3, 5 and 7.  Coincidence?  I don't know.

Spencer
















ernesto wrote:

> 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.
begin:vcard 
n:Kellogg;Spencer
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:kellogg@west.net
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:Spencer Kellogg
end:vcard