By Ronald Cannata
We as Rosicrucians are continually in contact with the word "Light." We read it frequently in our writings, we use it daily in our speech, we realize we are on the path to Light, but what of the word "Light" itself? How do we as Rosicrucians contemplate the word Light?
The word "Light," as listed in the Webster's New Students Dictionary, stands for (1) a noun, (2) a verb, (3) an adjective or (4) an adverb. According to its context within a sentence it can be one of many definitions, and as listed in Webster's dictionary has been clarified pretty well. But yet something seems to be missing. Can the word "Light" be a euphemism? and if so, for what word?
How can the lexicon of mundane speech be interpreted in mystical language?
If we consider the word "Light" as a euphemism for the word knowledge, our definition of the word "Light" is then clarified. We then find that "Light" is knowledge and we are all on the path of true knowledge.
Now, "knowledge" as listed in the dictionary comes from the French root word knowen, to know; (1) having understanding gained by actual experience, or practical experience; (2) the state of being aware of something or of having information; (3) the act of understanding: clear perception of truth; (4) something learned and kept in mind. If we interchange the word knowledge for the word "Light" we have the true Rosicrucian meaning.
We are all in search of knowledge, and knowledge is the gaining of actual experience and clear perception of truth. Now where do we acquire this knowledge? We seem to acquire it by the study of what the mundane world called genius, or knowledgeable men, or as we refer to them as Masters.
Let us take a look at two of these Masters and see how they acquired their knowledge, Leonardo DaVinci and Benjamin Franklin; they were born 314 years apart, but yet they had so much in common. We still utilize many gifts that they gave to the world today.
Both men were born to parents that could not give them academic training in their early life. When both were old enough they were apprenticed out to learn a trade; one a painter and one a printer. They became skillful in their respective trades and rightfully earned their titles and respect as artisans. But these men accomplished much more in their lives. They have both since their deaths been renowned for their knowledge as philosophers, inventors, writers, prophesizers and advisors to rulers and legislators. They also formed laws and rules for educators and politicians that have endured and enlightened man through the ages.
Where did these men get their knowledge? Surely not from formal education, for they did not attend any school, they were barely taught to read and write yet they must have had the need to know in order to educate themselves. In the time of these men knowledge seemed reserved for the rich, books were rare and scarce, formal instruction was transmitted from Master to pupil verbally, yet those men acquired a diversity of knowledge in many fields. How and why?
We find that these men had an inquisitive mind. One was fascinated by the flight of birds and he investigated the movements of wings in flight. Franklin, among other things, was renowned for his experiments with lightning, which fascinated him and gave him the problem to define it.
In the two preceding statements then we can say knowledge is the need to find an answer through study of material at hand and deductive reasoning. But if this is the only type of knowledge, how did society as we know of it today, progress to its present stage?
There must be another form of knowledge. Let us go back to our two masters and try to analyze their thinking which fortunately through their notebooks and writings we are able to do.
Possibly if these men were alive today, they would be considered a "jack of all trades" - "a master of none" for at first glance into their notebooks the inconsistency of their ideas seems paramount.
DaVinci has sketches of figures on one page, on the next page would be details for a war machine be designed, the following page possibly a chemical formula or a treatise on a religious law. So too, Benjamin Franklin's notebooks follow the same pattern.
One man an artist by vocation, the other a printer. Both man having an inquisitiveness to find answers. Now the problem before us is where did the questions arise from. Surely not from outside stimulus, for in their social climate thoughts of flying machines or central heating did not exist. If the question was not arrived at by outside stimulus then the problem had to be born Intuitively, and if the problem was born out intuitively the answer too must have come intuitively.
So looking once again at the notebooks of these two gentlemen we see the source of their knowledge. It was intuitive knowledge. When a thought, or a phrase, or even a word flashed before their minds, they took the time to listen and jot it down. Then through inductive reason and contemplation they expounded on the germ of the idea, adding and correcting their thoughts, experimenting deductively on thought arrived at intuitively until they finally formed a deductive axiom from an intuitive hypothesis, and in so doing, they gave the world new knowledge.
In summation of the following thoughts, I would like to offer the following axiom of light. If Light is knowledge, and knowledge is born intuitively, then the "Path of True Light" is not outward but inward.
And like the Masters before us, we must learn to listen to the still voice within and expound on it. For the more we utilize this gift, the easier it is to use, and the more it will benefit mankind and we will all arrive at the true light and knowledge.
Light is Knowledge! Knowledge is Truth! Truth is Light!
Copyright © 1971 Ronald Cannata