keeping our language lucid
Jan 28, 1997 07:58 AM
by uscap9m9
Einer:
> > I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not
> > unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand,
> > I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there
> > should only be wading in the shallow waters.
> My experience is that you can "wade" quite profound waters with
> people that are new to the subject, if you keep the discussion in
> a everyday language, and talk about it from a non-theoretical
> platform.
Yes, it's possible to share profound insights with people, using a
language that they're familiar with. They can take their new
insights -- flashes of intuition -- and make sense of them in
their own ways.
A Christian might use biblical terminology to describe their
new understanding of emptiness. A agnostic scientist might use
entirely different ideas to explain and understand the same
insight.
The problem is that western thought may not provide a fertile
ground for these seeds to take root. The vocabulary, concepts,
logic, and view of life that someone holds is a container for
their insights. It's also a *filter*, adding a bias, allowing some
insights to take root and others to be excluded and to die away.
The theosophical doctrines provide a language and a framework for
understanding great insights. The language allows a richer,
deeper, more expressive understanding of the ancient wisdom. I'd
say that it's as important to teach this *framework* as it is to
share some of the insights that we've had along the way.
> I have conducted a series of courses for newcomers, which go
> through the essential and fundamental principles of Theosophy,
> without mentioning theosophy or the traditional technical terms.
That's good. By letting people see the richness of ideas and
wonders found in Theosophy, you overcome the language barrier.
Some people may be turned away because of the terminology and the
jargon, the technical language. You help people discover that
there's a goldmine behind the theosophical books.
> To make it even more difficult, I like to take it from a profound
> mystical aspect, which often is quite non-logical or paradoxical
> in nature.
This is a good approach. What we're trying to impart is ultimately
mystical in nature. The emphasis is on *insight* or new faculties
of consciousness, which is what the mystical consists of.
The use of non-logical and paradoxical techniques in teaching is
important. We'd be trying to keep people from crystalizing in
their thinking, from getting trapped into ideas that are too
rigid. This streaching of the mind keeps it limber and flexible.
And in addition to keeping the intellect healthy, there's the
higher faculty of symbolic thought, of direct insight which does
not rely on logic or rationality.
Insights from this higher faculty can be partially *described* in
logical terms, but the description is different from the actual
experience. The difference is as wide as a clinical description
of "being in love" is from the actual life experience.
> The trick, I have found, is to relate the whole thing to the
> everyday experiences, and take it from a psychological
> experiential viewpoint.
The point, I think, is to use a common language -- one that the
audience knows -- to express the philosophy. Once their interest
is aroused, they can learn a more adept language for the mystery
teachings -- the theosophical philosophy.
And there's a second point here too: whatever we learn needs to
come back to our everyday life. The ideas need to take root in our
external life. There needs to be both a "reality check" of our
thinking with the external world, as well as a "potency check" of
the ideas having the power to make things happen in our lives and
the world.
-- Eldon
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
