Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00116)

Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
> As I understand it, behind the concept of UNITY is the
> unknown --hence, cannot be defined. Hence “"unthinkable and
> unspeakable". 
The statement, as given, is not reasonable (which doesn't mean it isn't 
true; it's missing a couple of important points, and uses the wrong 
bases to draw the conclusion). Many things that are unknown can be 
defined (for example, a black hole), and many things that are undeniable 
are known (such as love). There is a reason why the concept of UNITY is 
unknowable and undeniable; simply put, any attempt to define it creates 
a state of part of UNITY and not part of UNITY, but since not part of 
UNITY is impossible, then it cannot be defined. Similarly, an attempt to 
comprehend UNITY puts the comprehender outside of it, which violates the 
concept, making it unknowable.

The problem with the words "unthinkable" and "unspeakable" is in the 
difference between "cannot" and "may not". While, lexicographically, 
"unthinkable" and "unspeakable" imply "cannot", in popular usage, they 
imply "may not". Using those terms, therefore, implies a religious 
restriction that simply doesn't exist. The Mahatmas pointed out that 
truth should be expressed to people in terminology with which they are 
familiar. This unfortunately means that, as time goes on, the Primary 
Literature will become less and less relevant, not because of faults 
with the concepts, but because changes in language will change the 
concepts, as read.

Bart Lidofsky