because they cannot, even for the sake of experiment, admit for one moment that it "could be possible." So they glance at it and throw it aside because it was not on the curriculum at college and hence can be of no possible importance on this green earth.
Nevertheless by its use the basic meaning sounds of an ancient ancestral tongue can be traced by any student flexible-minded enough to make that initial allowance for a base from which to proceed.
These basic sounds, such as RA TE DE AN BE CE FE GEN ENG I KIN LO LEE LI MA MU MO NIN NE O SIS TEAT ST UND VI VE VIE VIT WIN WER TER DER XE Y ZE and RO can be found in so many words meaning the same thing, in so many languages meaning the same thing, that we get a picture of basic sound meanings that we can trace back and back to a once universal tongue. Gradually to a student this once universal tongue emerges as Mantong—and every word he says is translated by his mind into its Mantong meaning, which is a greater meaning.
It cannot be done by utilizing any system of word derivation now taught; for they are false, and it did not happen that way! If it did happen as they say it did, it happened long after the word had come into use over the whole earth, and their assumptions of its adoption into use and its spread are consequently error because they mistake in a given language an already existent word for a later derivation from some other word in some other language.
It wasn't that way. They only had a common universal source in one ancient tongue. If they did derive from two or more Elder sources, they still intermingled during the great lapse of time to form a mixture inextricable today because of their original similarity in concept-symbol or basic-sound-meanings.
This point of departure on the study of ancient tongues forms an insurmountable barrier between the classical student and myself. He cannot admit to begin with that there could be possible a basis for such an assumption that there was an original universal tongue.
He is confused by the multitude of his learnings. He KNOWS the Egyptian came first, or the Coptic or some other irrelevant tongue, and he knows that all similarities must be traced to original source of which he has already been informed. He presupposes himself into a state of admiration for his deduction which is only, after all, a complex assumption of firsts, derivatives, etc.
But, above all their squabbling over each word, Mantong emerges as the great Rosetta stone of the past. Touch any tongue with it and the veils fall away; the Mantong stands clear and clean above it all.
No other tongue contains their knowledge of energy, or gives a key to their wisdom—a wisdom greater than our own—and any student proceeding from an assumption that this wisdom never existed cannot proceed even experimentally in the study of the tongue.
For it is based on the play of two forces, and all phenomena of life are described as an interplay between these two forces De and Te, evil and good, Dis and Int.
Ssstt describes the touching of fire to water, of water to a hot stone—to us as to any primitive. BUT to a student of Mantong sssst is the survival of the ancient symbol for sun-fire, for dis striking against the ancient symbol for TE, for growth. The water contains the TE or growth force, and when it comes in contact with S, the fire, the noise sssstt always comes with it— and they used the symbols of these two primal forces with the sound which they make.
De was their sound symbol for the processes of disintegrant energy. De vi was their word for an evil man's energy. De vile their word for one filled with de; de cay, Dee See a (animal) Y.
Decay is a sentence in Mantong. It means: see dee in the animal, WHY? It taught. When the child learned the word decay, he learned to look for the cause of the decay, too. Hence the letter Y (why) is tacked on so many of their words. But no classical product of our colleges would ever admit that such a system of word building ever existed for he cannot admit that anyone in the past knew that much!
Add a little more detrimental disintegrant en-energy—we get DE AD. Dead meant: if you keep adding de you will die. You can't even monkey with the stuff (as we are learning with atom bombs—and are going to learn really by losing all our "precious" civilization in one flaming battle).
Dead also meant: someone had killed a DE unit of the social pattern. Their words had these coincident punning meanings packed in! De a De! A command to go out and make likewise any Hitlers or would-be Hitlers was inherent in their word for a dead person.
The word teat we cannot even say without lewd and comic thoughts. They meant something more; they meant: TE force is here at teat. (The child absorbs integrative energy here.)
Get a college word wizard to admit that any first race on earth ever knew any such thing about energy as that there were two basic forces, integrative and disintegrative! It isn't even taught yet (or is it?) that there is an integrative force, that disintegration demands an equivalent integration, or there wouldn't be anything to disintegrate in all space. OUR COLLEGES DO NOT TEACH AN INTEGRATIVE FORCE (to my knowledge), or even suggest that it could be a pole about which all life proceeds upon its beginnings until it meets DE and ceases to BE!
How then get them to admit that the ancients knew there was an integrative force and used it. as a basic symbol for GOOD, for a way of life in the word TIC, even though the word tic itself de-
