Theos-Talk Archives (February 1994 Message tl00031)

Arvind

> If I hurt you (even inadvertently), I am hurting myself!  It is
> good to keep everything in perspective and let us resolve to
> keep the idea of 'seeking to help (not hurt), to love (not
> hate), to serve (and not exact due service)' in mind as we
> write these messages.  Perhaps we will be discussing sensitive
> areas again soon enough, let us see if we can become
> dispassionate, detached and discriminative (I donot know about
> you but I know I am working on all these three at this time!)
> through this process.

     I wasn't hurt, but rather distressed.  I used the joke
because it was an excellent and humorous way to illustrate a very
important point.  I recall that over a month ago you had
chastised me roundly for accusing AAB of lying, when I never used
the word "lie", nor did it cross my mind to accuse her of doing
such a thing.  I thought we had resolved that issue.
Nevertheless, the memory of that event came to mind as I
transcribed the joke, queued by the word "lie."  It was to insure
that there woud not be another misunderstanding that I prefaced a
few lines explaining the significance of the joke, before
spelling it out.  Obviously I had failed to communicate, and that
is distressing.


> English was my second language and I may be somewhat
> handicapped by the fact that I was not born here (I consider it
> to be my first language now, having lived here in the US for
> over 17 yrs). It may help you (for future use) to know the real
> reason for my 'outburst' on the subject of FB's lie, even if
> you did it as part of a joke.  I feel, nay I know, that I owe a
> great deal to AAB, and because of what FB did for AAB, to FB as
> well.  Whatever anyone may say of AAB's books, I know what they
> have done to me, and that is why it is hard for me to accept,
> even in a joke, anyone suggesting that AAB or FB lied, without
> a substantial proof thereof.

     I would like to tell you a story.  You will understand why
as you read it:  After studying French for a year, I bought a
ticket and went alone to France for five weeks.  All together, I
stayed for three weeks in Vannes where I took a French course,
and two weeks in Paris.  The most memorable feeling about that
trip was my sense of humiliation and frustration, not having
enough command of the language to follow what people said to me
or to be quite sure what the signs were saying all of the time.
Even when I forced myself to speak, I was in constant terror of
saying "tu" when I should be saying "vous" or worse yet, make a
cultural error without realizing it.

     I'm now at the point where I can read theosophical books,
documents and articles written in French, and only rarely have to
resort to the dictionary.  So last semester I signed up for a
French literature course.  We read short stories written in
French, and we discussed them in French.  That was a shock.
Where I could read theosophical material with little trouble, for
these French short stories, I had the dictionary in hand looking
up words and piecing meanings together in almost every sentence.
It was not the vocabulary (though that was a factor too), but it
was the cultural context that threw me.  I could translate the
sentence, and still not know the meaning!  Yet, I could read the
Theosophical material with no difficulty, because I had been
reading this kind of material in English for many years.  But
French short stories are the product of a culture that I had
little experience with.  To give you an idea of what I mean: I
assume you are aware of the sexual connotation of cherries in
American culture.  In the French they have no such meaning, but
apricots do! In American culture, being late for an appointment
means that you "stood someone up."  In France, it means that you
"posed a rabbit."  Last semester, I took a seminar on literary
criticism, where we focused upon a single book--THE AWAKENING.
It is a short novel based in the background of French-Creole
Society in the Southern United States in the 19th century.  Upon
reading it, I recognized a lot of symbolism concerning death,
salvation and rebirth.  In the first scene of the novel, there is
a parrot who screeches profanities in French and English.  One of
the things he is quoted to say is: "Allez vous-en! Allez vous-en!
Sapristi!."  The footnote translated the phrase to mean "Go away!
Go away! For God's sake!"  I was very suspicious of the
translation of the word "Sapristi" to mean "For God's sake."  So,
I looked up the word in my French-English dictionary, where the
word was translated as an interjection meaning "hangit!"  That
was useless, so I consulted my French dictionary (French words
and definitions in French). It had the single word definition
"sacristi,"  which meant nothing to me, so I looked up "sacristi"
in the same dictionary, it said "juron familier" (i.e. a familiar
oath). Well I was getting nowhere fast, so I went to my French
professor and showed him the passage.  He said that a better
translation for "sapristi" would have been "for Christ's sake."
Then he went on to explain that "sapristi" is a contraction of
two words: "sang" and "Cristi," i.e. " blood" and "Christ,"  thus
literally, Christ's blood.  Thus the meaning "Christ's sake"
alluding to Jesus' blood sacrifice on the cross.  The
retranslation then fell right into the pattern of symbols that I
had already recognized as alluding to death, salvation and re-
birth.  The retranslation from "for God's sake" to "for Christ's
sake" made all of the difference in the world.  These are some
very common illustrations about how culture determines meaning.
There are countless others.  The trouble with learning a new
language is that the first five years or so of ones life is when
most of ones native language is learned. It is learned without
effort, because the child is absorbing it through cultural
context.  I've been studying French for about four years, yet
there is a lot about the language that any four year old French
child could teach me.  This is because I never grew up in the
culture.  How much more difficult it is for you, who came over
here in your twenties (is that right?).  Even if you were
familiar with the Anglo-Indian English, you still didn't have the
benefit of the American culture to learn the American English
through.
     Actually, If I was more astute, I would have given more
attention to certain characteristic misspellings and phrases that
occur over and over again in your messages. They are a dead give-
a-way to the observant that English is your second language.  But
what this means for you is that the meaning of what you read
becomes less sure, and is dependent upon your knowledge of the
subtleties of the American culture.  A language expert once told
me that English is a fairly easy language to learn superficially,
but it takes about 45 years to learn it well.

> English was my second language and I may be somewhat
> handicapped by the fact that I was not born here (I consider it
> to be my first language now, having lived here in the US for
> over 17 yrs).  It may help you (for future use) to know the
> real reason for my 'outburst' on the subject of FB's lie, even
> if you did it as part of a joke.  I feel, nay I know, that I
> owe a great deal to AAB, and because of what FB did for AAB, to
> FB as well.  Whatever anyone may say of AAB's books, I know
> what they have done to me, and that is why it is hard for me to
> accept, even in a joke, anyone suggesting that AAB or FB lied,
> without a substantial proof thereof.

     As I said, the "joke" was intended to teach, not to insult
or to accuse.  But this incident raises some concerns for me.
What if we were to find "substantial proof" (whatever that is)
that AAB or FB lied, or were frauds, or whatever negative things
you might think of.  Would you be able to handle that revelation?
After all, you say that you "owe a great deal to AAB."  Does part
of that debt to her include protecting yourself from any truths
that might tarnish or destroy your image of her?  Only you can
answer that question, but it is an important one to ask yourself.


> Another idea that occurred to me is that FB may have referred
> to TSD instead of SD in the same way that people used to talk
> of 'xeroxing' instead of 'copying' in the early days of copier
> machines.  For the vast population of theosophists out their,
> the two (SD and TSD) are one and the same thing.

     Yes we have "Cellophane tape" and "Scotch tape," "copying
machine" and "xerox machine."  People use these words
interchangeably, and is based upon what is called "brand
familiarity."   For TSD and the SD, I think the issue is
different.  In my 30 years experience, I don't recall hearing
anyone using those two phrases interchangeably.  The SD is a term
used in TSD, but is rarely used in conversation or in writings.
Instead of "the SD," most people use terms such as "The Ancient
Wisdom" or "Theosophical Teachings."  In my experience, people
generally say something like "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline
of theosophical teachings."  This kind of phrasing shows that
they *do* make the distinction, and change "SD" to "Theosophical
Teachings" or "Ancient Wisdom" to avoid the redundancy of a
phrase like: "~The Secret Doctrine~ is an outline of the Secret
Doctrine."  If AAB did use these words interchangeably, it would
strike me as a strange idiosyncrasy.  Can you find a pattern of
instances in her writings where she uses these two words
interchangeably?

> Also, about the occult status of FB, many people think that
> he was very highly evolved (a third degree initiate or higher).
> Are you familiar with this system of gradations for people
> on the path?

     Yes I am familiar with this "system of gradations,"  and I
have to be honest with you--statements of people's occult status
is something that I take with a grain of salt.  It means nothing
to me.  If you were per chance to tell me that FB Bailey was now
the Maha Chohan, it would mean nothing to me.  Not that I don't
understand who the Maha Chohan is; I just can't verify these
kinds of claims.  Regardless of what occult status any person
claims for themselves or is claimed for them, I look at their
lives and writings with the same scrutiny if they made no claims
at all.  If I find errors or ignorance in the writings of people
who claim high occult status, it just makes them look that much
more ridiculous.

> In any case, only the Masters are perhaps
> not amenable to make mistakes; most of us are not that
> precise in our communications.  One of the things I did
> learn from AAB/AS is that we all need to be extremely
> precise in our communication.  I have tried to observe myself
> and have noticed improvements in general, but what has
> happenned in my messages to you in many cases is 'the sacrifice
> of precision in favor of speed of delivery of the message',
> if you know what I mean!  I'd like to hear your views on how
> effective my communication is regularly!

     If FB were a third or fourth degree initiate, as you
suggest, then perhaps I should take your queue and have very high
expectations for the precision of his language.  Since precision
in our communications is one of the things you have learned from
the AS, then you can sympathize with my problem with occult
writers who use words with different meanings interchangeably.
As for your messages, when I don't follow your logic, I always
let you know.

     I just turned in about 30 pages of essays this morning.  It
feels good to have time to free write like this again.

Best

Jerry Hejka-Ekins