Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00264)

To Doss:
	You have been choosing some interesting HPB statements lately, very
nice springboards for conversation, BTW. Thanks.

ramadoss@eden.com wrote:
>
> As we enter the next millennium, and the gradual steady decline in the TS,
> I ran into an interesting statement from HPB:

	Of course, the concept of the millenium is heavily based on concepts
which are kind of screwy in the first place. For example, during the
late Middle Ages, when the number 0 had been thoroughly adapted in
Europe, there was a major convention as to which numerical base should
be used. The engineering types liked base 12 (if you notice, many
European languages still have a base-12 system linguistically, with 10,
11, and 12 being irregular compared to other numbers). The religionists
and philosophers liked base 10 (the number of Aristotle, after all, and
also the number of fingers on the human hand). Base 12 was far more
useful (and, unbenknownst to anybody at the time, base 8 or base 16
would have been, long-term, WAY far more useful), but base 10 won out.
If base 12 had won out, this would not be the millenium at all; the year
would be 1118 if base 12 had been used, with the "century bug" having
occurred 20 years ago.

	And, of course, the base of the millenium (the date of Jesus supposedly
being born) has to deal with historical events with no outside
historical record, and people living at the same time who didn't.

> Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky writes, is the friend and supporter of
> scientific inquiry, so long as scientists avoid dogmatizing in the domains
> of psychology and metaphysics. It is also allied with every effort to
> understand the manifestations of the Divine Principle.

	Unfortunately, we have too many people in the Society who adapt a
Communist/post-modernist attitude towards science, where science is
entirely psychological, and depends on one's politics.

	Bart Lidofsky