taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
When it comes to the idea of one, Universal world religion, based on one language, and one, universally held knowledge, let us look at what H.P. Blavatsky actually claimed ... and what most Theosophists and students of the Ageless Wisdom have come to accept as the case.
The following excerpt is from an article by Harry Young entitled The Unfolding Script of Speech and Language, found in Sunrise Magazine at the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004:
To disregard all claims for the (former) existence on our planet of one Universal religious teaching - based on this secret sacerdotal language known to all Initiates worldwide - is like asking for a branch of the proverbial Forbidden Tree from the Garden of Eden.
Because the believer cannot produce such a cutting, or any other evidence of a forbidden fruit, shall we conclude that Adam and Eve, like unicorns, are merely a product of our imagination ... and that this religious myth is - just a myth? Biblical literalism notwithstanding, are the prototypical Founders of Earth's Humanity simply a novel idea to help us make sense of the meaningless of our random & coincidental existence?
It comes as no surprise that today's materialistic skeptics and blind traditionalists arrive at the same conclusion on this subject. Lacking the objective proof that they demand (missing for reasons listed above, which ought to be obvious to anyone who was paying attention), the unimaginative cannot break themselves free of the well-worn grooves of accustomed thinking. Why turn to a new myth, when the standard continues to provide a perfectly good conundrum?
Plato Knew ... and now it is up to us - hopefully - to remember.
NAMASKAR
The following excerpt is from an article by Harry Young entitled The Unfolding Script of Speech and Language, found in Sunrise Magazine at the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004:
Writing in 1888, Blavatsky stated that "there was, during the youth of mankind, one language, one knowledge, one universal religion," (SD 1:341). Although The Secret Doctrine refers to a few extremely ancient languages, the oldest that theosophical literature speaks of at length is Senzar, which Blavatsky describes as a secret sacerdotal language: "for there was a time when [it] was known to the Initiates of every nation, when the forefathers of the Toltec understood it as easily as the inhabitants of the lost Atlantis, who inherited it, in their turn, from the sages" going back to the earliest human beings (SD 1:xliii). It remains unknown to modern linguistics, and theosophical literature maintains that it has been unknown to the mass of mankind since global cataclysms caused the divergence of languages from a common tongue, events characterized by flood myths and the biblical allegory of the Tower of Babel. Blavatsky calls it the "direct progenitor" or "root" of Sanskrit, and relates it also to ancient Persian, Japanese, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Native American languages.
Senzar was a means of communicating the most profound esoteric truths. Although it has its own written characters, its essence lies in part beneath the universal pictograms, glyphs, and geometry used in spiritual traditions, and partly in the storytelling devices and archetypes of allegory, parable, and metaphor found in dreams, mythology, folklore, religions, and the arts. All of us can intuit to a degree the meaning implied in such symbols as a circle or cross, the parables of Jesus, or Grimms' fairy tales. We think in symbols and concepts, in a language some linguists call mentalese, so these are perhaps collective memories of spiritual truths we all once understood that lie still within us, truths buried under many lives of habitual materialistic thinking, waiting for us to make the call. In an echo of Plato's teaching that all learning is remembering, Blavatsky implies that mankind will one day restore knowledge of the universal mystery language.
Anyone bothering to read this description, and who cares to familiarize him or herself with the facts (via any additional research desired), will find that it would be quite impossible to produce ordinary, empirical physical EVIDENCE of either the Senzar language, or of course, examples of ancient Mystery Teachings found IN the Senzar script.Senzar was a means of communicating the most profound esoteric truths. Although it has its own written characters, its essence lies in part beneath the universal pictograms, glyphs, and geometry used in spiritual traditions, and partly in the storytelling devices and archetypes of allegory, parable, and metaphor found in dreams, mythology, folklore, religions, and the arts. All of us can intuit to a degree the meaning implied in such symbols as a circle or cross, the parables of Jesus, or Grimms' fairy tales. We think in symbols and concepts, in a language some linguists call mentalese, so these are perhaps collective memories of spiritual truths we all once understood that lie still within us, truths buried under many lives of habitual materialistic thinking, waiting for us to make the call. In an echo of Plato's teaching that all learning is remembering, Blavatsky implies that mankind will one day restore knowledge of the universal mystery language.
To disregard all claims for the (former) existence on our planet of one Universal religious teaching - based on this secret sacerdotal language known to all Initiates worldwide - is like asking for a branch of the proverbial Forbidden Tree from the Garden of Eden.
Because the believer cannot produce such a cutting, or any other evidence of a forbidden fruit, shall we conclude that Adam and Eve, like unicorns, are merely a product of our imagination ... and that this religious myth is - just a myth? Biblical literalism notwithstanding, are the prototypical Founders of Earth's Humanity simply a novel idea to help us make sense of the meaningless of our random & coincidental existence?
It comes as no surprise that today's materialistic skeptics and blind traditionalists arrive at the same conclusion on this subject. Lacking the objective proof that they demand (missing for reasons listed above, which ought to be obvious to anyone who was paying attention), the unimaginative cannot break themselves free of the well-worn grooves of accustomed thinking. Why turn to a new myth, when the standard continues to provide a perfectly good conundrum?
Plato Knew ... and now it is up to us - hopefully - to remember.
NAMASKAR