Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00289)

Friday, August 31, 2001


Dear Friends:

Re: Language Phonetics Senzar Symbology


This probably why PHONETICS have more power than any written
word. H P B says that the secret teachings were for ages
transmitted ORALLY and not in writing. Even the SENZAR is said
by her to be a series of symbols and pictographs. [ see H P B
LETTERS TO A P SINNETT, p. 76 ]

The written word tends to concretize and materialize. The
phonetic gives space within which to improvise, or to retain the
strictest control over the vibrations used. But for accurate
transmission it is always the mind to mind synchronization that
will be found to be the most accurate method of transfer. But
this cannot, in terms of Theosophical ethics, be individually
developed, until such time as the personal motives are only
attuned to virtuous concepts, thoughts, feeling and deeds. We
have to make ourselves thoroughly virtuous -- incapable of any
selfish use of the creative powers of Nature that we may learn
about. It is the lower psychic (the Lower kama-manas) that is
the barrier to our own inner (and external) spiritual
perceptions.

Orientalists dealing with the written word and ancient MSS, are
limited to their present day concepts of the sound those symbols
and ideographs represent. But the actual secret code (as is the
SENZAR) is not to be discovered in writing. Nor do modern
natives of those countries have the esoteric and occult codes
that the ancient writers employed.

We are in effect left to our own devices to discover those
concepts that intermesh with each other and tend to present the
living and continually moving, developing truth. I believe that
while the LAW is stable, the events that continually impinge on
it, cause drifts and movements, which appear to develop as it
responds to all ethico-moral choices that any one makes, and that
millions make every instant.

If one studies The SECRET DOCTRINE and the description of the
SYMBOLISM very carefully, and correlates all that is given to
explain the meaning of those symbols, then the understanding
begins to dawn as to what SENZAR was/is. In studying The SECRET
DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED and H.P.Blavatsky's articles, we are
actually learning SENZAR here and now, even if we start with
English. The language, of those texts that we call Theosophy,
inevitably leads us to a universal form of communication. This
is what will be understood as students of theosophy, Esotericism
and occultism spread around the world.

When Panini constructed his Sanskrit grammar, he concentrated
more on the phonetics than written symbols for letters, phonemes,
and words. You will find this implicit in the original Sanskrit
renditions of PATANJALI YOGA-SUTRAS and in the BHAGAVAD GITA
(Krishna). You will also find that Brahmins who convey the oral
codes from father to son, stress the several layers of vocal
encoding that are implicit in the original texts, chants and
mantrams.

But while one can hear these expressions, the ability to put them
into symbols or into a modern language, remains veiled in deep
secrecy. But very few Orientalists have discovered this, and
discovering it they do not raise the enthusiasm of their
academic colleagues by presenting a situation for which there is
no resolution by materialistic means.

This is of course a speculation of mine, and should be treated as
such.

The laws and conclusions of modern linguistics and phonetics
serve to indicate the diffusion and descent into modern languages
of ancient tongues and their conveying of ancient usages and
discoveries. But the modern urge to "simplify" has a counter
effect. It is one of still further deepening the confusion of
interpretive views, as the older version are deemed "too
difficult" for the modern student. But is that REALLY SO ?

Why does each department and phase of Science develop in each of
its disciplines a "jargon" which makes communication more precise
and rapid among its students, but less understood by the average
individual ? Are we going to demand changes in Science and their
usage of communications to satisfy our "know nothing" situation,
or, are we going to struggle to learn exactly what they mean in
their own terms?

Why should we study Shakespeare, Carlyle, Milton or Tennyson?
They used a language that is "old" to us and why read Chaucer's
TALES or Beowulf ? Old English and Latin, French and even Greek
roots and inclusions or insertions into Anglo-Saxon and Norse
ought to be taken into account.

There is much to be thought about in this.

Best wishes,

Dallas.

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





-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [mailto:carson@blavatsky.net]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:02 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] mother and father

Pedro,

You say "matrix: mater, materna, mother".

I agree with you. Also "matter" wouldn't you agree.

Also Pater (Latin), paternal, father, patriot, and Pitris.
(Pitris? What
is that doing here and what is it?)

Ok, lets back up. Notice that the "f" in "father" and the "p" in
paternal
are sounds that are both made in the same place in the mouth -
namely with
the lips. (The letters "d" and "k" and "j", for instance, are
made
somewhere else in the mouth.)

Notice that the rule appears to be that the "leading consonants
must be the
same" or "made in the same place in the mouth". The vowels can
vary. I
have not been taught this and I don't know what the "official"
rule is, but
I notice it all the time in comparing languages.

The word "Pitris" means "father" in sanskrit! So it fits the
pattern! The
"p" is like the "f".

(Many years ago when I discovered that Pitris meant "father", a
light bulb
went off for me. It started me on a long, long journey, probably
still not
over , which meant that words were never the same again to me.)

There are several things to notice here.

1) We will be saying that religious ideas flowed from one
religion to
another. But see also that words themselves flowed from one
language and
culture to another. Is it then so surprising that the religious
ideas also
flowed?

2) The "strange" sanskrit words we use in this study actually
have often
given us English words and so they are more like old friends that
we at
first suspect. I might show you these things sometimes.
Actually it
should be turned around. What we are writing on this list should
be called
"degenerate sanskrit"!

3) Similarity of words according to the above rule that I
described to you
above, often means some connection in concept. In other words
there is
philosophy imbedded in our very language. It is right under our
nose and
we don't see it!

4) Does this mean there is a philosophical connection between
"mother" and
"matter". If so, what is it? Does it relate to Chomer that was
mentioned
by Christina?

This is a fascinating subject that Pedro has raised. What do we
say about it?

Reed

At 08:07 PM 8/29/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Matrix : mater, materna, mother ,
>
>Pedro Talavera. ---
>Current topic is at
>http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnstudy/bibleSyllabus1999.htm
>You are currently subscribed to bn-study as:
[carson@blavatsky.net]
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>leave-bn-study-6660817A@lists.lyris.net



---
Current topic is at
http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnstudy/bibleSyllabus1999.htm
You are currently subscribed to bn-study as:
[dalval14@earthlink.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-study-6660817A@lists.lyris.net