leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/21/04 1:21:22 PM, AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org
writes:
I fully agree with this paragraph from the Master. This phase of
giving Truth in paradoxical language continued till 1890. Later
principles were given in clear language. That is why I don't read
much what was written before 1890.
Unfortunately, we can't be sure that the so called "clear language Truth"
given out after 1890 (as supposedly "theosophical TRUTH") wasn't colored
(distorted) by the inherent biases and prejudices of those later authors
who professed
to interpret the earlier, so called "paradoxical (more like
*metaphorical*
and *symbolical*) language" used prior to that time.
There is also the problem that "clear language" is an oxymoron. While I
would not necessarily go as far as Jacques Derrida went with his
philosophy of "deconstruction", he did have a point that language is
ambiguous. There are always unspoken assumptions, and, if the reader has
different assumptions than the author, then the meaning is altered, as
well. Add onto this the factor of language drift; words change meaning
all the time (to give a strong example, call someone "gay" in the
1960's, then call them "gay" today, and you will get two very different
reactions. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, a man is called a "naughty
knave"; today we would think that the second word was the insult, but,
when it was written, "naughty" was a strong insult, and "knave" was not
at all insulting. I am currently researching my contention that when
Blavatsky and the Mahatmas were discussing "root races", the term was
unrelated to what we currently and laughingly call "races", although
later writers assumed they were, and a major link has to do with the
fact that certain vocabulary only entered the English language around
the time of Blavatsky's death.
Most people think that the primary use of language is communication. It
is not. The primary use of language is thought; it is said that we can
only think in symbols. If we do not have the language for a concept, we
cannot have the thought (although we CAN get around that problem by
creating new language). Blavatsky and the Mahatmas were trying to
explain concepts for which most languages were inadequate. I've
illustrated this in a short story I wrote when proposing to put humor
pieces in Theosophical publications:
The Light Blocking the Path
A decade or so from now, a worker who accidentally will wander into a
time travel experiment will go back into the past, to the days of the
Roman Republic. Once he learns Latin, he will try to explain the
technology of the 21st Century, but, being the product of typical
American schools, will not be able to physically reproduce more than a
few simple items. But he will impress the populace sufficiently that his
words will be written down, and eventually become official doctrine.
Let’s go forward a bit, when Thomas Edison (or any reasonable
equivalent) invents the practical electric light bulb. The Bureau of
Technology sends a representative to examine whether or not this
invention is valid.
Edison: Look! It lights up the room, and can go for days and days
without burning out!
Representative: I’m afraid, sir, that while that’s an interesting
diversion, it cannot be accepted as an electric lightbulb.
E: Why not?
R: Well, first of all, note that in the Book Of The Future, it states
that the electric light will be a form of continuous fire in a globe.
Now, as you well know, we have discovered, as the Book Of The Future
predicted, that fire is a result of a rapid combination of materials
with oxygen.
E: So, what’s your point?
R: My POINT, you heretic, is that your so-called “lightbulb” has a globe
with a VACUUM inside!!!! There CANNOT be a fire in a VACUUM. So that
CANNOT be an electric lightbulb!
E: But, note that we have discovered the reason that fire gives off
light is by heating up the molecules of the material so rapidly, that
they give off their excess energy in the form of light. My lightbulb is
doing that.
R: It does not matter. The Book Of The Future SAYS “fire”, and therefore
it must BE “fire”. Besides, even if there WAS a fire in the globe, there
are more problems!
E: MORE problems?
R: Of course there are more problems. I see that you are using metal
strings to bring the electricity to the lightbulb.
E: You mean the wires. And that’s a problem?
R: Very much so, I’m afraid. After all, the Book Of The Future said that
wires would be used to bring the electricity to the lightbulb. And those
are NOT wires.
E: NOT wires? Why not?
R: You should read the Official Books more often. For does it not say,
in Electricity IV:3-4, “And, like, thou knowest, electricity doth flow
through wires the way water doth flow through pipes. Yea, verily, that
is it, it is like water through pipes.”
E: And the problem with that?
R: Everybody KNOWS that pipes are HOLLOW inside. Those so-called “wires”
you are using are SOLID. They cannot possibly be carrying the electricity.
E: But sir! They ARE like pipes. The INSULATION is the outside of the
pipe, while the metal is like the air!
R: Ah, you fall victim to the Franklin Fallacy. For, whatever is being
carried through what you are calling “wires” will flow through WITHOUT
insulation. You take the outside out of the pipes, and the water will
flow all over the place! Those are NOT wires!
E: But…but…but…
R: I’m sorry. Invention denied. Better luck next time, and do try to
read up on the Book Of The Future.
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.1 - Release Date: 11/19/2004
