Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00080)

Hi Mauri and all of you,

My views are only views:

Yes. A tricky word this "real".
It can imply more than one thing.

The following might be interesting:
In mediaeval times, the line of messianic descent was defined by the French
word Sangréal. This derived from the two words, Sang Réal, meaning "Blood
Royal". This was the Blood Royal of Judah, the kingly line of David which
progressed through Jesus and his heirs. In English translation, the
definition, Sangréal, became "San Gréal", as in "San" Francisco. When
written more fully it was written "Saint Grail", "Saint", of course,
relating to "Holy"; and by a natural linguistic process came the more
romantically familiar name, "Holy Grail".
(Similar thoughts can be found in "The Sufis" by Idries Shah).

"real" = "royal" = "(G)rail" = "Greal"
And the last word stems from the Middle East.

Merriam Webster online Dictionary gives more than 5 different
interpretations.





from
M. Sufilight with peace...







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:03 PM
Subject: Theos-World re "Theosophical thought, Experience and


> re "Morten Nymann Olesen" Sun, 6 Jul 2003
> 21:29:08 +0200
> re "Theosophical thought, Experience and
> Teaching..."
>
> Seemed like a relevant (or "good") post, to me,
> apparently, on first reading, in a sense, I think ...
>
> <<... we can see that the real Theosophical
> organisation teaching and learning differ
> fundamentally from all other 'systems'.>>
>
> While one might see much sense (in whatever sense) in
> that kind of wording re what might be seen as the
> applicability of a Theosophy in terms of an
> organization and in comparison to "other systems"...
> Still, what came to mind was the question of how the
> author of that sentence might define "real" in that
> context. That is, presumably a "real Theosophical
> organization" is made up of "real" people, as well (or is
> it?), so ... In other words, I tend to wonder if there
> might be people out there who might wonder (as I'm
> tending to, apparently) about the specifics of
> "realitiness" (or "realisticity" as per ...) of people in
> general and in particular in various Theosophical
> organizations, and how the various perceptions of such
> "realities" might, "more specifically" (ie, from whatever
> interpretive, established or theoretical relevant
> perspective), translate in turn into organizational
> Theosophics. I suspect that most students of
> Theosophy might tend to concern themselves (by way
> of whatever interpretive tendency or belief) with the
> nature and applicability of the various "relevant
> realities" that may be seen to attend their studies or
> "approaches." Not that questions regarding "realities"
> were not dealt with in that post. On the contrary,
> much would seem to have been effectively explained
> about that topic by that author.
>
> I tend to suspect that a "real" Theosophist might be
> anybody who might think of themself as a "real" or
> "real enough" Theosophist, at least for a start: that the
> "real" nature of the "real" in that connection
> might/would "really" (per various "real/relevant"
> interpretational tendencies) seem to be the "real" issue,
> so ... If different people have different "reals," could
> that mean that we might wind up with different
> Theosophists, all of whom might claim to be "real"
> enough ... ?
>
> I guess I'm saying that "realitiness" in Theosophics
> seems interesting, to me, not that ...
>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>