Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00525)

>
>From: "Mark Kusek" <mark@withoutwalls.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:53:31 -0700
>Subject: Re: SD & Sanscrit
>
>alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> Dallas:
>> >Yes I am of the opinion that the S D contains a code that will
>> >open the understanding to "deeper" levels of the philosophy
>> >presented there.
>
>If you know how to look, anything can reveal it: a spoonful of jam,
>pickles, etc.
>(Do we see an image of truth, or as truth sees?) Why the conditional
>need for drama?


This implies that *you* know how to look, otherwise to use your words it is:
"A bias of opinion and unsupportable as absolute."
As is the statement "Why the conditional need for drama?"  It is you that
seem to be making of it a drama - who else said or thought anything about drama?

>> Recently there has been a discussion about Sanskrit.  English is hard
>> compared to Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the language of the gods. Its
>> softness, its compassion, the pronounciation/sound and the colours produced
>> by that, surely have a beneficient effect on humanity?  It is a mistake to
>> see it just as a language, without taking into consideration its other
>> facets. Using  Sanskrit also helps humanity, and also helps those who use it
>> to go within.  It is the language of the within.
>
>A bias of opinion and unsupportable as absolute.
>
>> This is not to say we
>> should all be learning Sanskrit, but to ackowledge it, rather than
>> dismissing it. Using Sanscrit IS helping humanity. Using Sanskrit makes
>> Theosophy easier to understand. Using English makes it harder!
>
>I disagree. Don't confuse a form of language with the meaningful content
>it carries.
Perhaps that is precicesly what you are doing with YOUR interpretation of
the above.   Very easily done.

>It is possible to gutterally grunt the truth like a savage
>or express the whole matter with translingual silence.

Again, isn't this: "A bias of opinion and unsupportable as absolute."  Are
you so sure it is possible to gutterally grunt the truth like a savage?  Or
express the whole matter with translingual silence.  If you are seeing it in
the same way as jam and pickles - well possibly yes (no sarcasm meant).

The suggestion is, use the Sanskrit words, and encourage the use of Sanskrit
as it explains the meaning far better than English, and for those that do
and encourage it, will find that this is so.  English is excellent for
railway time-tables and the like.  And how beautiful a well run transport
system is too.
Not forgetting English poetry, literature, etc.........

You said something, in question format, very interesting about entities and
"creation" some time back.  And you related it to where "creation" begins.
An actor sees his audience as an entity.  The play that is being acted is an
entity.  Is it there, the entity,  waiting for them to act out the next
performance?  A worshiped god becomes a living entity, and then earthly
statues, etc. are built in its praise.  When that god (or picture, or poem)
is no longer worshiped or "worshiped" it starts falling apart in the astral,
and then the earthly statues start falling apart. Legs, arms, ears, etc.,
start dropping off.  Do you think beautiful old Churches, for example,
should be preserved in the name of art, or left to fall down? As fewer
worship the weaker they become (the churches) in the astral?  And then in
the physical.  Ruins certainly have a beauty about them, that a preserved
(in the sense of having passed its sell by date) church, mosque, temple, or
other building may not. It is interestring to try and relate this to the
"beginning" of "creation", to a new manvantara, dawn, Brahma, breath, or
whatever. Perhaps you have some thoughts, or can stear a different course.
Best wishes
Tony.