Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00108)

Wednesday, May 16, 2001

 

 

                        Re:  Languages and the Language of Theosophy

 

Dear Friend:

 

Languages are all inter-related.  Theirroots can be traced to the movement of masses of immigrants who in the past, have conveyed with them as they visited various areas the knowledge and wisdom of what they knew or believed to have continuing value.  They discussed, taught, and learned ideas and sciences.  These were all related to a common, basic theme -- understanding and conveying meaning -- related to the funding of knowledge and wisdom, both theoretically and practically.  Philology tries to trace the interrelations of languages, from current usage back to original roots and sources.

 

There are still extant languages like the Sanskrit that are very ancient and most detailed and precise as to the conveying of an exact sound.  In the SOUNDS is a depth of wisdom and an accuracy of transfer to be sought. Thus there is an unwritten literature which parallels the written word.  To most this remains a secret, and there are levels within levels whereby these secrets are stored.

 

Two great divisions then are to be traced:  The language that tried to accurately convey information about factsin Nature, and the language of fancy and imagination.  When the two are blended one may find there the roots ofthose records from which have emerged sacerdotalism and dogmatism -- where meaning disappears in a series of unprovable tenets.  These two “languages” are further divided into poetry and prose.  [ see S.D. II  pp. 199-200 ]

 

The whole of the original Theosophical Literature as provided by Mme. Blavatsky givesus an insight into this aspect of ancient and contemporary records.

 

Since we cannot yet consciously communicate ”mind to mind” very often, (I mean with conscious accuracy) language divides more than it does unite and especiallyon philosophical and metaphysical themes, where that accuracy is essential.

 

Thusarise the two “doctrines.”  The Doctrine of the HEART  ( Wisdom) whichis usually ”secret” to the “Eye” doctrine -- of words in theirliteral meaning.  In our great modern academies there is tremendous knowledge embodied in the ”Eye Doctrine.”  But very few seem to realize the amalgamating and synthesizing value of the “Heart Doctrine.”

 

As Isee it, the “Doctrine of the Heart” deals with universal and eternal ideas and those practices and disciplines that enable the embodied mind to widen out to the Universal in Man and nature.  This method is always suggestive.  It gives all who use it an opportunity to learn, to consider and then to seek such analogies and correspondences as unite them in the underlying thought / meaning. It depends largely, on the similarity of training and learning in philosophy and metaphysics of the correspondents or interlocutors.  Without that it becomes a meaningless jargon to the average reader or listener.

 

The “Doctrine of the Eye” are words and language used to convey ideas of all levelsof quality and meaning. It relies on the most literal meaning of the words and usually if used by those versed in the “Heart Doctrine” as a veil which covers the truth and deep intended significance.

 

Occultism and esotericism rely on this difference to convey (within the “words”) the MEANING of the Laws and events (history) that relate to the evolution of the world, of people (minds) and of the events of the past that illustrate these as cycles and Karma.

 

A reading of ISIS UNVEILED helps to secure a grasp of these basic concepts as evidenced from history and from some aspects of the secret doctrine.  The S.D. (BOOK) gives a great deal more and amplified the information in ISIS UNVEILED .

 

The use and application of this information will be found detailed in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY and THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. --  implying an attunement of the embodied mind/self to the great life and purpose of our evolutionary scheme in the Universe.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dallas

 

===========================

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Aquanutt
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re:  Definitions  --  The LANGUAGE OF THEOSOPHY

 

Greetings all,

 

    And I agree that Universal language should be used;and it seems
everyone here does, except me? I just have not got the gist yet of the
terminology/language of  Theosophy.

 

    This is what attracted me most to Theosophy was the potential to convey
ideas and philosophy in a common language, since I come from a background of
the world of trial and error, buying books blind, with no other human help to
guide me. I would have a stack of books come in the mail, say one on Vedanta,
another on Magic, another on Mormon, another on Kabbalah, another on Zardust,
another on Hermetics, one on Wicca, another on Voodoo, another on Ausarian,
and so on. It was always a hodge-podge of mixed stuff. I have (I think) the
right concepts and understanding of the things I get FROM Theosophy, but I am
so mixed up in language, I get tongue tied if I try to talk in S.D. Language.
I have the same trouble with speaking Spanish. Spanish is one of those
languages I just can not seem to learn to speak, yet I can understand quitea
bit of it. Japanese, Hebrew, German, Latin comes easy; Spanish, Sanskrit,
Chinese, Yiddish, and todays "Hebrew" tosses me for a loop.

 

    I tried an experiment of sorts, and that was to tryto talk in as simple
and original talk as I could muster up; trying not to use technical terms
from any one discipline or another as much as possible. The urge to
participate in the goings on here kind of did an over-ride on my original
intent to sit back and learn the lingo before I get to rapping on the subject
matter.

 

    That said, I will try to keep my comments shorter, and use stuff cited
from the Theosophical works. So, I 'aint' ignoring you all, I am here lurking
of sorts, giving as much effort as I can to learn the Language of this place,
Theosophy, I call home, and choose to hang my hat (unless I get evicted).

With Respect in Truth, Love and Light,
   Yours,
                                       Georg R.