Sanskrit language - pros and cons

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Saint James
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:42 pm

Sanskrit language - pros and cons

Postby Saint James » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:39 am

Is this language used for meditation purposes only, or do people actually still speak this language anywhere, ie in India. Is it really similar to hindu? Is this language useful for career prospects in Europe?

User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:53 am

Yes, Sanscrit is spoken in India but only by the very educated class. I understand that at least one of the Shankaracharyas speals fluent Sanscrit. Like most languages, there will be more who can read and understand it than speak it. It obviously is the forerunner to Hindi (as you will see by looking at the alphabet). Anyone with a smattering of Sanscrit can make out the advertisements in northern India.

As to its use? It's said that it predates Greek and Latin and fed into both so it will underlie our own English. Its study is a training of the mind as much as anything. As such, it will be extremely useful. Interestingly, my local police chief (a woman) has a Sanscrit degree.

AntonR
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:32 am

Postby AntonR » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:00 am

Post deleted
Last edited by AntonR on Wed May 17, 2006 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:19 pm

Stanton wrote:Its study is a training of the mind as much as anything. As such, it will be extremely useful.


What does this mean, as much as anything? Does not the study of any subject train the mind? Why "extremely"? Surely it would be better to master modern european languages that also "train the mind" and are more practically useful?

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:05 pm

I have never understood the study of classics as being a training of the mind. I was used as a common justification for all the weird and wonderful things we learnt at school that had no practicality.

Study itself is what trains the mind. Experience has told me it doesn't particularly matter what subject you study.

As far as I understand it, St James and the SES study Sanskrit because it is the oldest known language and they believe this to be the purest language from which the universe was created, or at least the nearest to it that any human has access to. It all seems a bit far fetched to me.

Yes, classics including Sanskrit could be useful to you if you are a linguist and are interested in languages. It may also serve a purpose when studying particular areas of history. Other than that I can not see it serving any practical purpose.

Bonsai

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:26 pm

bonsai wrote:As far as I understand it, St James and the SES study Sanskrit because it is the oldest known language and they believe this to be the purest language from which the universe was created, or at least the nearest to it that any human has access to. It all seems a bit far fetched to me.
Bonsai

The problem with this aspect of SES 'philosophy' (and indeed many others) is that it is simply not true. Sanskrit is not the oldest known language.

Tom

Saint James
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:42 pm

Freemasonry - sanskrit

Postby Saint James » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:01 pm

Thanks for your responses.

In a previous response I read "chief", and just for fun typed "freemasonry sanskrit" into google.

There seems to be some connection with sanskrit and freemasonry as well.

http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Masonry/W ... sub23.html

"One of our ancient Sanskrit prayers goes thus:

"LEAD ME FROM UNTRUTH TO TRUTH,
FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT,
FROM DEATH UNTO IMMORTALITY".

Only through Freemasonry can this prayer be answered... "

Any thoughts on this?

Any connection between Freemasonry and SES ?

A new topic?

User avatar
Sam Hyde
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: St James boys school
Contact:

Postby Sam Hyde » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:02 pm

Personally I think its a TOTAL waste of time, :evilbat: time that should otherwise be spent learning modern languages.
Maybe this is why all the GCSE pupils boycott it! And get really shit grades, WE DON'T CARE FOR SANSKRIT STOP WASTING OUR TIME!!!!
(senior school that is! The juniors, it develops beautiful skill of pronunciation and articulation, skills that are invaluable for any language)
thats old now, like me, only 4 weeks to go!!!!!
"I've never let my schooling interfere with my education"

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:44 pm

I think the key reason that Sanskrit is so important in SES-run schools is because the cult believes that this language has mystical properties. As Bonsai suggests, they seem to believe that the sound of Sanskrit somehow incorporates echoes of the creation of the universe. This is why I was forced to stand for hours at a time in a cold room chanting Sanskrit syllables with other unfortunate boys - apparently, it was supposed to release creative energy, or something. Yes, I know it's utterly barmy. No wonder the SES keep quiet about this sort of thing! Much easier for them just to tell children and parents that it's a "useful" language.

Tom

User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:57 pm

As an adult I found Sanscrit very difficult and at school I found Latin difficult but just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. I don't know if it's still done but recruitment to the civil service used to favour classics graduates because the study of classics 'trained the mind'. Sanscrit may not be for you and like Leon I'd prefer to learn a European language although Chinese - another difficult language for westerners - is obviously going to be very important for the 21st century.

james
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Leeds (currently in NZ)

Postby james » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:32 am

Tom Grubb

I do not believe or dibelieve your claim that the SES thinks that Sanskrit has mystical properties but some actual proof would be good before you claim things like that!

Nice one Stanton.

PS I got an E at GCSE sanskrit!

:bday:
Im in a cult? You think? Don't worry the spaceships will be coming soon.

ses-surviver
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:11 pm
Location: London

Postby ses-surviver » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:51 am

james wrote:Tom Grubb

I do not believe or dibelieve your claim that the SES thinks that Sanskrit has mystical properties but some actual proof would be good before you claim things like that!


I'm not Tom, but I certainly remember having been told that in Sanskrit/Caligraphy groups. This is also key to the practice of Reflection, where one 'reflects' upon a Sanskrit verse. The idea being not to 'think' about the verse (and its meaning in English), but to allow the mind to 'reflect' and for the truth/meaning in the words to be revealed. Since I didn't do a great deal of this sort of reflection during my time in SES, I don't have any blinding experiences to offer as 'proof' - it was another of those SES teachings that one was 'offered' and practiced/put to the test.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:15 am

james wrote:Tom Grubb

I do not believe or dibelieve your claim that the SES thinks that Sanskrit has mystical properties but some actual proof would be good before you claim things like that!
:bday:

Well, it's easy to prove that many people believe that Sanskrit has mystical properties. Just do an internet search. But proving that the SES thinks likes this is more difficult, at least for me, as I was never a member and the SES are so very secretive about what they actually believe.

I'm sure former or current SES members could do a much better job of proving this.

Tom

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:07 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:
james wrote:Tom Grubb

I do not believe or dibelieve your claim that the SES thinks that Sanskrit has mystical properties but some actual proof would be good before you claim things like that!
:bday:



I'm sure former or current SES members could do a much better job of proving this.

Tom


ok, (there goes my lunch break!)



From my old books, St James and SES.

"the study of Sanskrit is necessary if we are to understand our relationship to creation. The whole of creation is embodied in sound. The language of Sanskrit is a reflection of this unfolding in the universe."


"OM represents the sounding will of the Absolute, it sustains upholds and contains the creation. When the sound is withdrawn the universe dissolves. OM cannot be heard by the mind or the senses. if we divide OM into three parts the first is a reflection of the universal unchanging and indestructible, and carries expansive consciousness. The second part sustains, creates and dissolves creation. The last part contains all the names and forms of creation. The total carries the universal and unending feeling of existence. we study sanskrit to find our way back to the absolute."

"Sanskrit helps us to speak the truth. It is the only language that will enable a man to find his way back to the absolute.
Sound starts in the causal world and cannot be heard by the ears. Sanskrit is the nearest language to the causal world.
We must always listen to the "Sanskrit AH" in the voice- it is always there, even in everyday language. It is soothing and restful. It has the ability to penetrate the listener." Sound a short "Ah" and take it inward to sound within. What happens? Add ("M") this is the sense of existence of "I AM"

"This OHM regulates the whole creation. The swara countain all sounds. Swara is absolute, only consonants manifest"

"The sixteen Swara are the sixteen measure of the universe. It is rare for a man to develop more than 4 Shakti, and this over a period of many lives. Mozart developed only one. a fully realised man has developed all 16."

"It is in the first 16 years of life that real development takes place. after 16 there is no further possibility of real spiritual development in the course of the particular embodiment. (incarnation).
"Speech is the bridge from the heavenly world to the physical world.
It is the purest reflection of the most natural language. the universe was created according to sound and in order to know this we must understand the naturl language."

"The power of sound is great. the first part of OHM carries forth the outward breath
which carries sound, digests food and is the sound that is inhaled by everyone else. Sound the Mantra and take it inwards.

Mantras transform the physical world into the subtle world. Mantras allows space to form in the mind. Mantras can create castles before our eyes and heal the sick. Because of mans weakness in the iron age this knowledge is hidden.
We swallow on the outward breath.

with a straight back and head erect , rest and be still.
Center the attention on (atah) without repeating it. (note this practice should run for 5 minutes)
Terminate this with (ETEE)

"become aware of the presence of myself and sink deeply into myself.
Remaining at rest and without mmoving or opening the eyes, allow the attention to expand as far as it will go. (pause)"

"(pra) appears to be located in the navel. although it seems absurd to talk about consciousness located in the navel, the absolute has to take a position. for this purpose, the absolute takes its stand in the navel""

etc etc etc etc

It should be pointed out this was from my books when I studied at the schools, I have no idea what they teach these days. But it is clear that the SES study of sanskrit leaned towards the Tantric and metaphysical. I don't have a problem with that in itself but I don't think it is suitable material for young kids. Consenting adults, fine.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:46 pm

Thanks Leon.

To be honest - all this banter about whether the SES is a cult and whether St James is / was guilty of being a part of that is irrelevant.

People can look at stuff like this and make up their own minds.

You don't have to look too closely to see that it is a complete load of tripe!..how on earth do they know that Mozart developed only one shakti - and wtf is a fully realised man and who decides that they are or aren't.

I threw all my ST Vedast books on the fire (sometimes before I was supposed to have finished with them) so I have no referene material at all, but why don't you start a thread with this stuff - let people decide for themselves if they want their kids taught this stuff.

Alban


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 51 guests