"Borean"

( To Mr or Mrs Moderator: From the last 20 or so minutes, there is one reply that is the edited version of my comment from last night, a la, from BEFORE UnitedGnosis replied... then there is a reply TO UnitedGnosis... So the former should appear before UnitedGnosis and the latter after... Hope that can be easily incorporated! Thanks) CircledSquare
 
There's also this ( from http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ListOfCollatedArticles/TheLostAtlantis.html )

"The Sanskrit language, as now known, was not spoken by the Atlanteans. The predominating element in Atlantis was a language which has now survived but in the dialects of some American tribes, and in the Chinese speech of the inland Chinamen, the mountainous tribes of Kivang-ze -- a language which was an admixture of the agglutinative and the monosyllabic, as it would be called by modern philologists. It was, in fact, the language of the "Red-Yellow" second or middle geological stock. "What would you say to our affirmation that the Chinese -- the aborigines who belong in their unallied nationality wholly to the highest and last branch of the Fourth Race -- reached their highest civilization when the Fifth had hardly appeared in Asia?" Even the historical works of China are full of such reminiscences about the Fourth Race. In Shoo-King, anyone can read in the French translation, "When the Mao-tse" -- that race, explains the Annotator -- "which had retired in days of old to the rocky caves, and the descendants of whom are said to be still found in the neighborhood of Canton...." The surviving handful of these inland Chinese are of very high stature."

Don't know if it's accurate!
 
CircledSquare said:
But to answer your question, "roots" are important, and perhaps "theory" is actually also present in the "beginning" of a language anyway, as a way of structuring the combination and recombination of these roots. Some languages that seem more unique in the world perhaps have a more flexible stance to recreating this combinatorial power of language.

Which of course also brings up things like Kabbalah and whether or not our use of language reflects the "language" like nature of Creation, etc.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming that any "language" of Creation is anything like what humans know and use as language? Is that a valid assumption or 'correct concept' to bring to the C's? If so, may I ask why you think so? I'm just curious.
 
Also:

(Accurate?)
( Also from this site : http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ListOfCollatedArticles/TheLostAtlantis.html )

(From Histoire des Vierges): "One of the most ancient legends of India, preserved in the temples by oral and written tradition, relates that several hundred thousand years ago, there existed in the Pacific Ocean an immense continent which was destroyed by geologic upheaval. The high plateaux of Hindustan and Asia. According to this hypothesis, would only have been represented in those days by great islands contiguous to the central continent. ... According to the Brahmans, this country had attained a high civilization, and the peninsula of Hindustan, enlarged by the displacement of the waters at the time of the grand cataclysm, has but continued the chain of the primitive traditions born in this place. These traditions give the name of Rutas to the people who inhabited this immense continent, and from their speech was derived the Sanskrit."

The Hindus possess recorded observations from the date of the first Great Flood within the Aryans, historical memory. One million years are allowed for our present Aryan Fifth Race, the first sub-race of which witnessed the doom of the last of the populations of the giant Atlanteans, that which submerged the last portions of Atlantis, 850,000 years ago. The Secret Doctrine declares that most of the later island Atlanteans perished in this interval between 850,000 and 700,000 years ago, and that the Aryans were 200,000 years old when the first great island or continent was submerged. But the destruction of the famous island of Ruta, in the later Pliocene times, and the smaller one of Daitya, must not be confounded with the submersion of the main continent of Atlantis during the Miocene period.
 
CircledSquare said:
Can a theoretical based study of roots and interrelations of ur-languages approach the usefulness of actually learning an ur-language itself?

To risk stating the obvious, it can be argued that basic monosyllabic combinations of phonemes is the starting point for the "making" of any language. Actually, it has been pointed out that languages like Sanskrit and other forms of Indo-European are actually indeed "created," and that the combination of basic sounds/forms thence under particular morphological rules (and in the case of Sanskrit - but perhaps not as uniquely as we might think - according a particular metaphysics and ideological-experiential framework) make this language what it is.
Click to expand...

A tautology, indeed, but one that slips by unnoticed by most utilitarian speakers of language (i.e. people who speak only a language because "it gets the meaning across" rather than wondering exactly how that meaning has come to be constructed so that it comes across).

For instance, it seems that devanagari, the "divine alphabet" used by sanskrit and related languages, is an express attempt to codify the highest density of information transfer while minimizing noise and expense of vital energy (prana, breath). It is especially obvious to me in the choice of vowels that are clearly differentiated from each other (only a, not à & a, only o and ou, not o, ou & u, only é, not e, è & é) yet marking specific emphasis on whether the vowel is short (one matra, a "count", abiding in the vocal apparatus) vs long (two counts, feeling the vowel expressed out of the apparatus and into the outer environment).

The consonant selection also shows efficient and effective insight, utilising nearly every possible sound of the vocal apparatus - (non-aspirated voiced/unvoiced + aspirated voiced/unvoiced + voiced nasal) * guttural, palatal, cerebral, dental and labial enunciation areas, for 25 consonants - + 3 sibilants, dental, cerebral and palatal - + 4 semi-vowels, palatal, cerebral, dental and labial - this is a pretty complete map (skipping the classification of r. and l. here). It's interesting that the main missing consonants, the palato-dental 'ch' as in german 'ich', palato-guttural 'ch' as in german 'doch' and the simple f, are pretty much the most costly consonants in terms of breath anyway.

Thus, the selective emphasis of sanskrit on voiced/unvoiced, aspirated/unaspirated combined with vowel duration allows for encoding maximal information without relying excessively on inflexion as chinese does, which I find implies/induces emotional attachment/disturbance relative to the information being voiced - i.e., speaking sanskrit makes one more aware of expanse of vital energy for each syllable communicated, even while sustaining equanimity and impartiality towards what information is communicated.

These are practical benefits, solely from study and practice of the actual language, which indeed reflects the applicability of the metaphysical/epistemological science it comes from as well as the integrity with which this knowledge was mapped unto language.

Perhaps, then, this "Atlantean," is present in the natural records kept by the roots and words in languages as far flung as Native American and Bantu. This would be because a) "Atlantis," as Shijing notes, was a far reaching empire and b) there were incidents of mass-exodus after a cataclysm... Both of these would also mean "Atlantean" (perhaps synonymous with Sanskrit) mixed with surrounding "local" languages (which themselves may or may not have been already influenced by - or been a product of previous mixing with - Atlantean)

But to answer your question, "roots" are important, and perhaps "theory" is actually also present in the "beginning" of a language anyway, as a way of structuring the combination and recombination of these roots. Some languages that seem more unique in the world perhaps have a more flexible stance to recreating this combinatorial power of language.

Which of course also brings up things like Kabbalah and whether or not our use of language reflects the "language" like nature of Creation, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't know about those deep linguistic conjectures - to me, however, they are indeed worthwhile - insofar as they can be validated - so as to direct study of the actual languages themselves, so as to experience the map of reality they describe. That is was i considered before initiating my study of sanskrit - i was split between it and hebrew at the time. However, considering the fruits of hebrew/kabbalah, i.e. millenia of pathological paraticism, a minimum of knowledge of reality and a whole lot of exoteric imposing one's will on reality - black magic, in simple terms - vs that of sanskrit - millenia of flowering of esoteric sciences, buddhist, upanishadic and vedantic, consisting of aligning one's will with reality - white magic, that is - i chose sanskrit. If linguistic studies indicated, for instance, that bantu is most clearly connected with humanity's root language, i would definitely be interested in exploring its map of reality too. That is what I mostly meant by my questions. So far, though, there seems to be a lot of conjecture and not a whole lot of actual insight in all the theorycraft. Perhaps i am in the :wrongbar: :)
 
Re: Buddy:

Are you assuming that any "language" of Creation is anything like what humans know and use as language? Is that a valid assumption or 'correct concept' to bring to the C's? If so, may I ask why you think so? I'm just curious.

I am not sure I'd want to incorporate this claim (which was a re: to UnitedGnosis) in my question(s). But there is perhaps the notion that language, and the capacity to speak it, is indeed more "divine" than the 1-3 dimensional existences that life forms find themselves in. If I were to ask the Cs any question with respect to this, it would be something like, was language the invention of intelligences higher than our "human" selves? Which seems indeed a possiblity.
 
Perhaps this is also accurate? ( from: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/sanskrit.htm )

Where did the Sanskrit language originate? Dr. G. de Purucker has said [The material of this and the following two paragraphs are paraphrased from a letter written by G. de Purucker, in answer to questions sent him on the subject; extracts from which appeared in Lucifer, September, 1935.] that one of the earliest of the Aryan tongues, a lineal descendant of an Atlantean progenitor was the philologic parent of what is now known as Sanskrit. In ancient times in India, and in the homeland of the Aryans before they reached India by way of Central Asia, this very early Aryan speech was used not only by the Aryan populace, but in the sanctuaries of the Temples was taken in hand and developed to be a far finer vehicle for expressing abstract religious and philosophic conceptions and thoughts. And this tongue thus developed and worked upon by Initiates of the Aryan stock was finally given the name of Sanskrita (perfected), signifying an original natural language which had become perfected by Initiates for the purpose of expressing far more subtil and profound distinctions than ordinary people would ever find needful. So great was the admiration in which the Sanskrit language thus perfected was held that it was commonly said of it that it was the work of the Gods, because it had thus become capable of expressing godlike thoughts and profound spiritual subtilties and philosophical distinctions. Thus it was that Sanskrit became the mystery-language of the Initiates of the Aryan race. This refers to the Sanskrit of the original Vedic writings, a more complete form than appears in the later or classical Sanskrit which has lost many of its former, more original, and, when effectively used, very telling grammatical beauties.
 
Perhaps this is not in "line" with what Shijing posted from the Cs, however ( also from: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/sanskrit.htm )

"Thus Sanskrit was not spoken among the Atlanteans, nor can it be called an Atlantean language, although its verbal roots go back to earliest Atlantean times. Sanskrit is a typically Aryan tongue, i.e., highly inflected, perhaps the most highly inflected language known today; even more so than ancient Greek, the next most highly inflected language. The language of the Third Root-Race was largely onomatopoetic, i.e., reproducing certain sounds of Nature which by human usage and long custom finally became established and understood as the means of conveying human thought, human needs, and human wishes. These sounds are the roots of all languages as they existed in later races. Then came the Atlantean, which was what philologists call agglutinated speech, i.e., a combination of verbal-roots or words without change or inflection. Some of the languages existing on Earth today are of this type; such as most of the languages of the American Redskins and the Mongolians. This agglutinated tongue became more and more complex and more and more grammatical as inflexions slowly developed through the ages; until finally agglutination passed over into inflexion, thus giving rise to the early languages of the Fifth Root-Race. Sanskrit being a perfected Aryan tongue is highly inflected."
 
Lastly, there is perhaps this clarification ( from: _http://gnosticteachings.org/books-by-samael-aun-weor/the-doomed-aryan-race/1286-the-aryan-root-race.html )

The Atlantean Root Race disappeared, swallowed up by the sea. Such a race had seven subraces; the last of these subraces, the seventh subrace, corresponds to the survivors of the great tragedy.

The seed of our Aryan Root Race is Nordic. When the Nordics mixed themselves with the Atlantean survivors, they gave origin to all of the subraces of our Aryan Root Race.

The first Aryan subrace flourished in Central Asia.

The second Aryan subrace flourished in India and the entire south of Asia.

The third Aryan subrace created the powerful civilizations of Babylon, Chaldea, Egypt, etc.

The fourth Aryan subrace developed in Greece, Rome, etc.

The fifth Aryan subrace is made up of the Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic populace.

Edit=Link
 
I don't want to be the "preventer-of-dancing-in-circles", as we say in French, but I still see only pointless conjecture from dubious sources. Quoting Gomez Rodriguez - Samael as he titled himself - is an obvious red flag for me. The guy was at most a bookworm, tainted by god knows what influences from theosophy and rosicrucianism, plagiarizing Oupensky and Gurdjieff in his own "inspired" books and speeches, and then with the gall to call himself an avatar. Meh.

As I said, conjecture and theorycraft. I'm still curious, though, how many languages do you speak, and which?
 
Hi,

(Re: your question: Personally, I only speak English fluently. But I don't really see what that has to do with this.)

I believe the thing I quoted from this "Gomez Rodriguez" was itself lifted from Blavatsky (or perhaps Cayce?). In which case, there's still information that "jives" with what the Cs say. There's also some "Ra" material stuff that corresponds, namely, that with the cataclysm of the "5th planet" of the time, new races came to Earth.

So basically all I was wondering was if the glimmers of some "Ur-language" from Central Asia was some offshoot of "Atlantean" / and what this may have to do with "Kantekkian." Additionally, it remains confusing to me the ways in which "German" and "Celtic" are distantly related to Sanskrit if the "Aryans" and the "Atlanteans" are different (as the Cs say). For if Sanskrit is the "oldest language on Earth" (as the C's answered), and if "Aryan" is "different," what does the fact that these languages seem related reflect about lines of descent (who came from where, whether on or off the planet)?

But also to additional answer your concern, UnitedGnosis (which I do understand!), some roots remain more or less "incontrovertable." See for example the presence of "water" as largely the same across continents.
 
Hi,

So to re-state in optimally-simple terms (I hope):

If "Sanskrit" is clearly an Indo-European language, and "Germanic" is as well, how is this reflected in the fact that "Aryan" and "Atlantean" races are not the same? Are the differences between the languages more or less congruent with the differences between the races?

OK maybe that clinches it!

Regards,
CS
 
Your questions are very good, and I can see how well they refer to the conjectured/esoteric history of the races (and I won't be the one to answer them, this is way beyond me).

I'm sorry if my question had an agressive slant - which it did, at least rhetorically - as it was a reaction to something you quoted - but without the quote format.

Thus it was that Sanskrit became the mystery-language of the Initiates of the Aryan race. This refers to the Sanskrit of the original Vedic writings, a more complete form than appears in the later or classical Sanskrit which has lost many of its former, more original, and, when effectively used, very telling grammatical beauties.
Click to expand...

Thus by reading this ending paragraph, which although possibly true sounds pedantic (implying mastery both of classic and vedic sanskrit) I thought you might be wiseacring and tried to call you out on it.

It's only after I replied that I went to read the link you quoted, and realized that although the quotes were missing that last sentence of your post also came from the quoted article.

Hence, apologies. Your questions seem relevant and insightful, again, but they are beyond me. But as to the relevance of my question - although stripped of its rhetorical aggression since that quote is not yours - it is mostly of practical import. Learning a new languages, in a very experiential way, allows you to witness the inner workings of your epistemological projections onto reality - that is, you truly get to feel and see how your map of knowledge is projected onto the world, with all its assumptions, idiosyncracies and inadequacies, and to correlate it with a different map of knowledge, parts of which may be mutually exclusive. It truly is an enlightening process.
 
United Gnosis, re:

"Learning a new languages, in a very experiential way, allows you to witness the inner workings of your epistemological projections onto reality - that is, you truly get to feel and see how your map of knowledge is projected onto the world, with all its assumptions, idiosyncracies and inadequacies, and to correlate it with a different map of knowledge, parts of which may be mutually exclusive. It truly is an enlightening process."

I completely agree! I've had some notions that knowing a language is much like being "modern," that is, being flexibly related to reality and always ready to adapt it to some unforeseen aspects of the "world," and being able to use language to to create a new world (or to approach such).

As for Sanskrit both vedic and classical, indeed I claim NO mastery whatsoever, lol, and am glad the misunderstanding was quickly realized. It seems you have a lot of good things to say about it, and dare say if I embark on learning the language (which I had been interested in doing for some time), I'll certainly try and ask your advice! (If you don't mind, perhaps we could be in touch via e-mail -- mine is watercodes@gmail.com -- and I'll get some inquiries to you once in a while... Assuming that if you're interested in such a thing, you could simply e-mail me, otherwise, no pressure to!)

I still believe that this "language origin" issue is still something that would also enlighten all, and that by knowing the various branches of "spread" across the centuries we'd have a much deeper understanding of what-all is happening (still today)!
 
By the way, however "coarse" the source, this seems to shed some light dare I say on the dilmma:

"John Allegro shows how the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the etymology of various Mesopotamian languages all have mushroom and sexual puns/terms interwoven. This is due to the prominence in the pre-Christian world of mushroom and fertility cults. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, the languages of the Bible, all ultimately derive from ancient Sumerian, where many original meanings had been long lost."

Thusly another possible question to be asked is: is it actually true that Sumerian is ancestral to both Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages? Would it, then, be a relative of something that Sanskrit represents even further back?

On a parallel but divergent note, is it reasonable to assert that languages like a) Dravidian b) Basque c) Hawaiian d) Native American languages as well as e) the indiginous languages of Australia and environs -- are also more related than not??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom