Study of the Scriptures is necessary for Self Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Dr. Harsh K. Luthar has said 'You may go on reading any number of books on

Vedanta. They can only tell you 'Realise the Self'. The Self cannot be found in

books. You have to find it for yourself in yourself'.

 

I want to ask him how can one find oneself? If one can find oneself accidentally

or by himself then what is the necessity for a Scripture like Veda or a Guru.

These kinds of statements denigrate our scriptures and the Guru-Shishya

paramapara.

 

The Self is something which cannot be objectified. Trying to know oneself is

like the eyes trying to see itself. One fellow wanted to see his eyes. So he

thought he will look into the mirror. But a 'wise guy' told him 'why are looking

outside if you want to see your eyes? look inside.' But however much he tried to

turn his eyes inward he was not able to see his eyes. He only ended up with a

head ache.

 

Another wise guy told 'Keep on asking the question 'How my eyes look like? and

you will see.' He did that also but could not see his eyes. Then he decided to

look into the mirror and alas he saw his eyes.

 

Vedanta is a word mirror. All it does is reveal yourself, your real nature. So

telling not to study books is like asking a person who wants to see his eyes, to

not look into the mirror.

 

Vedanta is looked upon as a Pramanam - means of knowledge. Our problem being not

knowing one's real nature the solution is only knowledge. And to gain knowledge

a valid means of knowledge is required. If you want to see color you need eyes -

the vaild means of knowledge for revealing colors. The self being not an object

of the mind is not available for perception or inference. So only the scripture

has to resolve the confusion regarding the Self and reveal it's true nature.

 

So study of the scriptures is necessary for attaining Self knowledge. Just

stilling the mind or asking questions like 'Who am I' wont work. If stilling the

mind will do then anybody who sleeps should become a jnani. Just repeating 'Who

am I' also wont work because the one who is questioning is the ignorant person.

After some time the only answer one will get is 'I am an idiot'. So the 'Who am

I?' vichara has to be done by first studying Vedanta with a Guru who knows the

methodology to teach i.e. one who is a Sampradayavit.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

Thanks for your valuable observation regarding our scriptures and Guru-Shisya

Parampara and this Sampradhayam is surviving for thousands of years.

 

Recently I read a news item about a nine year child attending a college in

Virginia and taking graduate level course. Geniuses such as this child do exist

in this world who don't need to go through the system of elementary, middle,

High school and college. Does it mean that the entire educational system is

irrelevant? The answer is obviously no!

 

We may come across some individuals without any formal training in medicine to

have knowledge and skills better than a trained doctors. Does it imply formal

training in medical education unnecessary? The answer is certainly no!

 

There are few lottery winners in this universe which do not imply that the way

of life should be participating in lottery and winning!

 

We may occasionally get the experience of seeing a Ramana Maharishi who was able

to self-realize without a Guru and learning and understanding the Scriptures.

 

Rules are never created from one example and it is very important to understand

the mathematical statement on necessary and sufficient conditions.

 

(1) No one including Shankara denies the fact that Reading of Scriptures and

learning from a Guru is not sufficient for Self-realization. The saints and

sages of the Upanishads have stated this point again and again.

 

(2) For a selected very few (the only one that I am aware is Ramana

Maharishi)reading of sciptures may become not necessary!

 

Finally, I have to say that Shankara's Advaita does talk about non-duality but

non-duality does not necessarily mean Advaita! It is important Shankara's

Advaita has strict rules of qualifications for a Sadhaka (seeker). Shankara also

puts stricter rules of qualifications for the Guru. It is not any student and

any guru and it is infact the student and the Guru. If we go back and study the

biography of Swami Vivekananda, this point can become clear. Narendra (Swami

Vivekananda), the young seeker was looking for a Guru for guiding him to find

the TRUTH. After a long search, he met Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and immediately,

both of them recognize that their search was over! The STUDENT met the GURU and

we all know what happened afterwards. A careful study of the biography of Swami

Vivekananda will also reveal the presence of GRACE and without that such a

meeting would have never taken place.

 

In conclusion, I have read the previous postings of Harshaji and I know that he

understands the value of reading Vedanta books and the Scriptures. As I

understand, he is just pointing out that reading vedanta books and scriptures

alone (mechanically without self-awareness)is not enough. Infact, Shankara also

will agree with it and he makes similar statements in Vivekachudamani. I don't

believe that Harshaji is trying to denigrate Guru-Shisya Parampara, and the fact

that he is contributing member of this list confirms this point.

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

--

jaishankar_n

Reply-to: advaitin

7 Oct 1999 12:26:49 -0000

>jaishankar_n

>

>Dear Friends,

>

>Dr. Harsh K. Luthar has said 'You may go on reading any number of books on

Vedanta. They can only tell you 'Realise the Self'. The Self cannot be found in

books. You have to find it for yourself in yourself'.

>

>I want to ask him how can one find oneself? If one can find oneself

accidentally or by himself then what is the necessity for a Scripture like Veda

or a Guru. These kinds of statements denigrate our scriptures and the

Guru-Shishya paramapara.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/7/1999 7:27:16 AM Central Daylight Time,

jaishankar_n writes:

 

<< Dr. Harsh K. Luthar has said 'You may go on reading any number of books on

Vedanta. They can only tell you 'Realise the Self'. The Self cannot be found

in books. You have to find it for yourself in yourself'. >>

 

I believe what was written...the words of Ramana Maharshi, are meant not

to denigrate scripture, but to show the necessity of the actual experience

and its superiority over simple book learning. As my guru, Ammachi says, "One

cannot gain nourishment by looking at a picture of a loaf of bread, one must

eat the actual bread." (paraphrased)

She gives many discourses on this theme, though Advaita Vedanta is taught

at Her ashram, She repeats the necessity of Sadhana (spiritual practice):

meditation, selfless service, compassionate action AND scriptural reading. If

a person still becomes agitated with someone else because of differing view

points, then how could they possibly be experiencing that all are One?

 

From "Eternal Wisdom" vol. 1:

 

"The 'knowledge' we have now has not been gained through sadhana. We have

just read what others have written and we sit around mouthing the words, 'I

am Brahman.' We say 'I am Brahman,' but we do not show any compassion,

humility, or forgiveness towards anyone. Such people have no right even to

utter the word 'Brahman.'

"If you train a parrot, it will also say 'Brahman, Brahman.' But if a cat

comes by, the parrot will only know how to cry in fear. It will die crying.

Instead of just repeating the word 'Brahman,' we have to absorb that

principle. We have to fix it in our minds through constant contemplation.

That principle is the symbol of compassion and expansiveness. It has to be

experienced. Those who have experienced it don't have to keep saying, 'I am

Brahman.' We can feel that quality just by going near them. Their smile will

persist in all circumstances.

"Now the Brahman in us is like the tree within a seed. How will it sound

if the seed claims, 'I am a tree?' The tree is in the seed, but the seed has

to go under the soil, after which the sprout, and then the seedling has to

grow up. When it becomes a tree, you can even chain an elephant to it; but if

we don't protect the seed, it will be eaten by some bird. The supreme

principle is indeed within us, but we have to bring it to the plane of

experience through study and constant meditation."

 

From the above we can understand that "study" of scriptures or at least

the philosophy presented in the scriptures is important, however, the

metaphor of the seed "going under the soil" refers to the HUMILITY that is

necessary to experience "Tat Twam Asi." The danger with scriptural knowledge

is that sometimes it can inflame the ego, making it harder for humility to

grow. Without humility the Oneness of non-duality cannot be experienced, for

there remains the feeling of superiority. There is nothing at all wrong with

the scriptures themselves, only the ego that becomes amplified by thinking

that it "knows it all."

 

I am not accusing anyone on this list of doing the above. Only pointing out

the necessity of humility and experience along with scriptural knowledge.

This is where the guru becomes so important. The guru, through their love and

wisdom, helps the disciple out of the pit of ego so that the clear light of

Truth can shine within them.

 

Om Sri Guru,

Jai Ma,

Love, Parvati

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

i would like to echo the observations made

by Ramji, in this thread.

 

if i may add, Sri Ramana's words Harshaji quoted

are vital, yet need to be put into the context

of when/where appropriate. i.e. there comes

a stage on the path where it becomes utterly

critical to be able to release all the teachings

and concepts previously adopted, and rely on the

[suddenly realized to be the] everpresent current

of atmabhavana dwelling in the Heart, and quite

beyond dependency of the Mind.

 

however, this is timely and special. prior to

such, the studying of the sastras are paramount!

 

as Ram stated, many sages have taught the need

to transcend scripture, yet it is never suggested

that en route to the point where it becomes vital

to do so, that they under *any* circumstances be

in fact bypassed or ignored. quite the contrary.

 

i'm sure most on the List are quite aware of this.

however, i'm pointing it out here for the sake of

emphasizing the importance of evaluating what may

sometimes appear to be contradictory or outrageous

statements being made [by learned people or even

sages themselves], and bear in mind that such are

suited to unique conditions and/or individual

temperaments, and shouldn't be taken as blanket

statements, applicable to all.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

 

jaishankar_n [jaishankar_n]

Thursday, October 07, 1999 8:27 AM

advaitin

Study of the Scriptures is necessary for Self

Knowledge

 

 

jaishankar_n

 

Dear Friends,

 

Dr. Harsh K. Luthar has said 'You may go on reading any number of books on

Vedanta. They can only tell you 'Realise the Self'. The Self cannot be found

in books. You have to find it for yourself in yourself'.

 

I want to ask him how can one find oneself? If one can find oneself

accidentally or by himself then what is the necessity for a Scripture like

Veda or a Guru. These kinds of statements denigrate our scriptures and the

Guru-Shishya paramapara.

 

 

Namaste Jaishankarji! Thank you for your observations. You have attributed

to me the words of the great Sage of Arunachala. I was actually quoting

Ramana Maharshi as given in the Maharshi newsletters on the web. At times,

I myself delight in reading the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the

other great scriptures. Both Ramji and Frankji have offered further words

and clarifications which I greatly appreciate and wholly agree with. It is

not my purpose to offend and for that I apologize. Scriptures are indeed

eloquent and beautiful in indicating and speaking of the Self. The

traditions which offer these teachings are grand and incomparable. Our

gratitude to the sages in these traditions knows no bound. Truly, the Self

is beyond all scriptures and all traditions.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/8/1999 7:42:24 AM Central Daylight Time,

profvk writes:

 

<< The humility needed is exemplified by the Sruti Herself

(collectively standing for all the vedas). The Divine Mother is the Mother

of the universe. Sruti falls at the feet of the Divine Mother and her head

touches the divine feet >>

 

Namaste,

 

Thank you Profvk for the reminder of who the Vedas really are! I apologize if

I was in anyway disrespectful to them.

 

Om Sruti-sImanta-sindUrI-kRta-pAdAbja-dhUlikA

 

Sri BhAskararAya's commentary (1785) on the above mantra: "The Vedas are

incapable of describing the true form of DevI properly. Sivastava says, 'O

parameSvara, the scriptures which are the seat of all knowledge and are very

dear to You, are unable to describe You adequately and fall silent like women

silent from bashfulness. If even they can describe You only by saying, "Not

this, not this, " how can a mere mortal like myself do it properly?'"

(English translation by Dr. M.N. Namboodiri)

 

Jai Ma,

sincerely, Parvati

[Guest guest]

Parvatijai wrote:

<.... From the above we can understand that "study" of scriptures or at

least the philosophy presented in the scriptures is important, however,

the metaphor of the seed "going under the soil" refers to the HUMILITY

that is necessary to experience "Tat Twam Asi." The danger with scriptural

knowledge is that sometimes it can inflame the ego, making

it harder for humility to grow. Without humility the Oneness of

non-duality

cannot be experienced, for there remains the feeling of superiority. There

is nothing at all wrong with the scriptures themselves, only the ego that

becomes amplified by thinking that it "knows it all." >

 

Wonderfully said. The humility needed is exemplified by the Sruti Herself

(collectively standing for all the vedas). The Divine Mother is the Mother

of the universe. Sruti falls at the feet of the Divine Mother and her head

touches the divine feet. The dust of the divine feet is crimson in color

since the feet of the Mother is always painted that way. The crimson dust

sticks to the head of Lady Sruti exactly at the parting of the hair. Thus

arises the name (from lalitA-sahasra-nAma):

Sruti-sImanta-sindUrI-kRta-pAdAbja-dhUlikA

meaning, the Divinity, the dust of whose lotus feet has crimson-colored

the parting of the hair on the head of Sruti. The dust of the divine feet

on the head of Sruti is an indication that even though Sruti may be of

vast content and knowledge, Her knowledge of the Divine Mother is only a

speck!

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The URL of my website has been simplified as

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access both my books from there.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

Let me add little more in addition to the excellent points made by Parvathiji

and ProfVK. According to Shankara, those who read the Scriptures for

scholarship and ego (self-promotion) are just wasting their

precious time. The story behind Shankara's Bhajagovindham explains this

clearly.

 

This well known story describes the circumstances in which this great poem,

Bhajagovindham burst forth the lips of Sankara. Once in Banaras when he was

going along on his daily rounds, he overheard a very

old Pundit cramming Panini's grammer rules. Sankara was touched with pity at the

ignorance and folly of the man to be wasting away the most precious 'dusk hours'

of his life for a mere intellectual

accomplishment instead of spending them in contemplation on the Lord, praying

for spiritual enlightenment and for release from the bondage of Samsara.

 

Shankara knew that this was not the state of that particular old man only, but

was the general state of most of us. We waste and while away our lives in many

(or most) futile ways, grovelling in the mire of

earthly attachments forgetting God who is the only goal in life. In compassion

for this plight, Shankara burst forth into these stanzas, famous as MOHA

MUDGARA, now popularly known as *BHAJA GOVINDAM*. "Oh,

Fool ! Oh, ignoramus ! Grammer rules (in fact all your secular learning) will

not come to your rescue when death knocks to snatch you away. Instead of wasting

away the precious span of your life in a futile

manner, turn to and seek Govinda, who alone can save you from the jaws of life

and death". Shankara stresses two important ingredients for Self-realization:

(1) Humility - Death of Ego (2) Help of HIS

Grace to beyond the intellect.

 

Shankara's advaita stresses that intellect is an important tool, but without

humility and Grace the tool can become hindrance to spiritual development.

 

Homepage of Shri Giri Madras ( a member of Advaitin List) with the URL Address:

http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/1415/bhaja.html ) has an excellent

presentation of the entire BhajaGovindham stanzas with

meanings)

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

I did'nt mean that intentionally someone has denigrated the Scriptures or the

Parampara. In fact the intention of the speaker is not very important here but

the effect of this statement (particularly when attributed to a highly respected

person like Ramana) on the minds of people is very important. A person who is

already a jnani need not be told that scripture is useless to him because he

already knows it. And an ajnani will only get confused by such statements. What

I want to stress is that when someone says that the self cannot be found in the

books it is a very misleasding statement.

 

Ramachandran says ' For a selected very few (the only one that I am aware is

Ramana Maharishi)reading of sciptures may become not necessary!'.

 

How does anybody know whether Ramana studied the scriptures or not?. In fact

what we hear is that he used to listen to Shankara Bhasyam read by Jagadeeswara

Shastrigal. He has also translated many works of Shankara and the Bhagavad gita.

So he has indeed studied the shastras. The other point is how can anybody judge

whether it was necessary for him or not? May be it was necessary. So we can't

make statements like this. Shankara says 'Asampradayavit Moorkhavat

Apekshaneeyaha' - which means 'The one who does'nt know the sampradaya has to be

kept away like a fool.' And one does'nt know the Sampradaya i.e. the methodology

of teaching, unless one has studied the shastra properly under a Guru. So not

having studied the scriptures is not a great qualification for anybody.

 

Further he says 'Finally, I have to say that Shankara's Advaita does talk about

non-duality but non-duality does not necessarily mean Advaita!'

 

I really dont understand what he is trying to say here. May be he should give

more explanation.

 

Paravati says 'I believe what was written...the words of Ramana Maharshi, are

meant not to denigrate scripture, but to show the necessity of the actual

experience and its superiority over simple book learning. As my guru, Ammachi

says, "One cannot gain nourishment by looking at a picture of a loaf of bread,

one must eat the actual bread." (paraphrased)'

 

This whole analogy of eating the actual bread is wrong and misleading. In fact

gaining nourishment is Karma Sadhyam. So the act of eating is very important.

But Moksha being jnana Sadhyam ( Accomplished by Knowledge ) only knowledge is

enough. And Knowledge is gained only by reading the scriptures with the help of

a guru. Doing sadhana etc. is only to prepare oneself for receiving this

knowledge. So just doing 'sadhana' will not help if not followed by a proper

study of the scripture. Shankaras main opponent in his Bhasyas seem to be the

Jnana-karma samucchayavadi who says that Jnana has to be followed by karma (like

meditations etc.) to gain Moksha. And Shankara argues against him writing page

after page on why jnana alone is enough. But the pity is, in the Modern days

those who profess that they are following Shankara themselves think that reading

the scripture is to gain theoritical Knowledge and that some practice (Karma) is

necessary later to gain Moksha.

 

Further she says 'The danger with scriptural knowledge

is that sometimes it can inflame the ego, making it harder for humility to

grow. Without humility the Oneness of non-duality cannot be experienced, for

there remains the feeling of superiority.'

 

This statement is again misleading. Scriptural study in fact helps us to be

humble. When one studies all the great literature left behind by our Rishis and

jnanis and see the thoroughness with which they have discussed the different

subject matters, it is really humbling. Whether a person is humble or not

does'nt depend upon whether he has studied the scriptures. It depends on one's

upbringing.

 

Further she says ' "Now the Brahman in us is like the tree within a seed. How

will it sound if the seed claims, 'I am a tree?'. This again is a very

misleading analogy. When Brahman is everything and when you are already brahman

this analogy does'nt make any sense. Even when the scripture is talking of

'Prathyag atma' it is only from the standpoint of negating one by one the locus

of 'I' such as body etc. as 'Not I'. The important thing is 'I don't become

Brahman' but I only know 'I am already Brahman.'

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I am only regular reader of all the postings and participate in the satsangh in

silence.

However I feel like responding in all my humility to jaishankar's statement

 

"What I want to stress is that when someone says

that the self cannot be found in the books it is a very misleading

statement."

 

 

I most humbly submit that we need to understand the proper context and the

spirits of

the words of the great sages as reproduced by the learned members on the list.

The real meaning and understanding of the words is that that mere scriptural

study does not lead to Moksha. study and understanding of the scripture are

very essential but that alone is not enough but what is stated therein needs to

be practised and acquired in life. A mere study of scriptures alone morning and

evening in a faithful ritual will never lead to Moksha. Like Arjuna we have to

learn from Lord Krishna the way of life by reading Gita and by practising it in

our day to day life full of Dharmyudha otherwise to my mind it will be a

meaningless ritual.

 

I fully agree with a view that it does sometime leads to unnecessary ego.

Being son of a Priest in a temple here at New Delhi in India and having spent my

childhood and youth in temple precincts and still being in

association with persons connected to various religious institutions I find

truth in the above statement.

 

Saint Kabir has very beautifully said:-

 

"Pothi Par Par Jag Mua Pandit Bana na Koye, Adhai Akhar Prem ka para to Pandit

Hoi"

 

People in the world have died learning books whole of there life but could not

become learned. Those who have studied two and Half word of Love( Prem when

written in Hindi is two and half word) and have become learned.

 

The study of scripture alone is not enough. that's how Shankra starts his Bhaj

Govindam.

 

"Oh, Fool ! Oh, ignoramus ! Grammar rules (in fact all your secular learning)

will not come to your rescue when death knocks to snatch you away. Instead of

wasting away the precious span of your life in a futile

manner, turn to and seek Govinda, who alone can save you from the jaws of life

and death".

 

I remember having read in one lecture of Swami Ranganathanand ji Maharaj of

Ramakrishna mission. Quoting from Mahabharta Swami ji said. A child when born

first grows in Bahu Balam "Muscle Power" then he needs to grow in Budhi Balam

"Knowledge Power" and then the most important he needs to grow in "Atam

Balam" that inner power which puts the man on a right path.

What We find in society many persons very strong in Muscle or Intellectual Power

but that power is being misused in the absence of Atam Balam, the power of Soul.

Study of scripture will make person learned but not necessarily lead him to

moksha if he fails to follow what he reads in his real day to day life and

increase his "Atam Balam"

 

Was Ravana not a great Pandit? But his scholarly knowledge was not matched

with his deeds. He grew in Bahu and Budhi Balam but did not grew in Atam

Balam.

 

Swamiji in his commentary on Katha Upanishad Mantra 2.23

says:-

 

 

"Nayamatma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya no bahuna srutena:

Yamaevaisa vrunute tena labhyah tasyaisa atma vivrnute tanum svam"

 

This Atman cannot be attained by study of the scriptures, nor by sharp

intellect, nor by much hearing: by him is It attained whom It chooses-- to him

this Atman reveal its own(true) form.

 

pravacanena literally means teaching; here it means study which is prior to

teaching. In a narrow sense, this study refers to the study of the Vedas; in its

widest sense, however, it means the study of sacred books in general. the Atman

cannot be attained by the study of the sacred books, says Yama, and adds: nor by

medhas-sharp intelligence, nor bahuna srutena--by much hearing. It is remarkable

that the Vedas themselves, in several passages, say that Atman cannot be

attained through a mere study of them. Few scriptures in the world have the

boldness to say this of themselves; for that boldness is the product of a deep

passion for spirituality and not for a dogma or creed; and it is sustained by

the spirit of detachment and objectivity. Sacred books, says Ramakrishana do not

contain God, but only information about God, like the Hindu almanac which

forecasts the rainfall of the year, but which will not yield a single drop of

water if one squeezes it! The Vedas themselves speak of further steps, besides

study and hearing(sravana), for the realisation of the Atman; these are manana,

rational understanding, nididhyasana, deep meditation.

we need scriptural study which enlightens us with the experiences and teaching

of those who have traversed the path of God; we need sharp intelligence to grasp

correctly what we study and observe; we need to hear about the Atman and the

higher life, But these are not enough; we need to apply our reason to sift what

we have gathered from study and hearing; and,finally we have to concentrate on

the truth of the Atman and dwell on it in deep meditation" unquote From The

Message of Upanishads by Swami Ranganathananda.

 

In one of his lecture Swami Vivekanand has quoted from some scripture while

commenting on certain Gurus and scholar's

 

"One more idea. There is a peculiar custom in Bengal, which they call Kula-Guru,

or hereditary Guruship. "My father was your Guru, now I shall be your Guru. My

father was

Guru of your father, so shall I be yours". What is a Guru? Let us go back to the

Shruties--"He who knows the secret of the Vedas", not book-worms, not

grammarians, not Pandits in general, but he who knows the meaning " Yatha

Kharaschandan Bharvahi Bharasya veta na tu chandanasya" An Ass laden with a

load of sandalwood knows only the weight of the wood , but not its precious

qualities" so are the Pandits. we donot want such. What can they teach if they

have no realisation?

 

 

Thus in my humble submission the need for the study of scriptures is to be

understood as means to an end (realisation of self) not an end in itself.

 

M.M.SUDAN

 

NB Since I am posting on the list after long silence, as desired by

Ramachandran by way of brief reintroduction. I am a householder based here at

New Delhi. To sustain myself of material existence I am professional Lawyer

practising at Delhi High Court for the last 25 years. For realisation of Atman

I endeavour to practice in my life what I learn through satsangha (including

e-mail satsangha presently) and study of scriptures.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/10/1999 11:55:26 AM Central Daylight Time,

mmsudan writes:

 

<< The study of scripture alone is not enough. that's how Shankra starts his

Bhaj Govindam. >>

 

Namaste Dear Ones,

 

Madhava asked what kind of scriptures are being discussed. This is a very

good question. We assume since this is the Advaitin list, that we are mostly

referring to the Vedas and Sri Shankara's commentary, but when we use the

English word "scripture" we do need clarification, which is addressed below.

 

Thank you M.M.SUDAN. I think you clearly got to the point of this debate.

 

I would like to address Jaishankar's concerns and apologize to anyone that

may have been mislead by any statements made in my emails. I would never want

to discourage the reading of sacred texts. I am, however, in agreement with

M. M. Sudan that the mere "reading" of scriptures is not enough, that the

Truth within them must be lived.

 

This is exactly what is meant when Ammachi says: "No nourishment can be

gained from looking at a picture of a loaf of bread, one must actually eat

it." (paraphrased)

 

Her statement is not meant to be interpreted at simply a literal level,

though it can be understood at that level too. I will attempt to explain:

 

First, in no way do I claim to be a great scholar of Sri Shankara or the

Vedas, I am only a student, and a beginner at that. I am not very familiar

with Miimaamsaa or the long and honorable traditions of interpreting Indian

scripture. I do know that Shankara wrote commentaries on various scriptures

in order to help clarify their meaning to others. I have only read some of

them. In the West there is also a long history of commentary on sacred

writings, its called hermeneutics. In this field I have some academic

training. There is a tradition of hermeneutics on the Hebrew Torah, a work

not unlike the Vedas, as it is believed to be the direct illumination of God.

According to this tradition there are four levels of interpreting a sacred

text. A similar system of interpretation was used by many medieval Christian

interpreters of the Old and New Testament. The four ways of interpretation

are: literal, moral, allegorical and anagogic (mystical). I assume that

there is likely a similar tradition in India. The relevance of this tradition

to our discussion is that not all of sacred texts can be understood at all

four levels. Some scriptural passages have a very clear literal meaning and

often there are multiple simultaneous interpretations to any given text. But,

some phrases really make no sense when read only at the literal level and

must be interpreted to a moral, allegorical or anagogic level in order to

understand the deeper Truth contained therein.

 

When Ammachi says "bread" and "eat" she is using the words symbolically to

mean "Truth" and "absorption." Though literally "eating" is action (Karma),

at an allegorical level it is absorption (attainment of Knowledge). Her

statement is a very simple yet profound way of explaining that the Truths of

scripture must be taken deep within a person, and then thoroughly digested to

the point of becoming part of their constitution. Only then will the Truth

have the power to change our lives and bring us to the state of

Self-Knowledge. She recommends sadhana as a way to prepare oneself to be able

to absorb and live these Truths. As with Her story of the parrots, being able

to recite scripture is not Knowledge. True Knowledge must be experienced as a

state of Oneness with Brahman.

 

I am in agreement with Jaishankar that scripture should be read under the

guidance of a guru. I also agree with M. M. Sudan that the consciousness of

the guru will determine the quality of their direction. If the teacher is not

established in the Supreme Self, how can they teach a Truth of which they do

not have True Knowledge? Therefore, I am not trying to teach here, but simply

to examine the question and see if what I have believed up to this point

still holds up as Truth.

 

Jaishankar makes a good point when he wrote:<<Without a valid means of

knowledge there can never be any knowledge. Can we know any color without

using our eyes? So if I say, to see color the only way is to use one's eye,

is it correct or not? Similarly Scriptures are the only valid means of

knowledge to know my true nature correctly.>>

 

My only difference of perspective with Jaishankar is that at the literal

level "scriptures" are not the eyes, "scriptures" are more like charts

showing the various wave lengths of the colors in the electromagnetic

spectrum. We do not necessarily "see" (experience) the Truth by reading the

"scripture" we experience it by the revelation of the Truth within us, which

may be prompted by the words that we read. The eye in this analogy symbolizes

the Atman. It is the vehicle by which we "see" Truth. Here is where it is

necessary to define "scripture" ....

 

The word "scripture" comes from the Latin word meaning "to write" or "that

which is written" If the texts of every sacred book in the world were to be

burnt today, Truth would still be available - for it is eternal. It exists

within the Self, for that is its origin. Therefore, the Truth of the Vedas,

the Torah or any Holy book, always exists in the Supreme Self. But when we

use the English word "scriptures" by definition we are referring to the

"text" which is perishable. There is a tradition in both Sanskrit and Hebrew

that the "letters" and "words" themselves ... of the Vedas and the Torah are

actually God, in this sense, the "Words" of the scripture are immortal and

can never perish. This is the anagogic level of interpretation. These holy

sounds, syllables and words exist within the Self and are therefore

accessible without the text, but as text they are more easily accessed by a

humble and thorough reading of the work as a revelation from God. When

someone understands a scripture at an anagogic level they directly experience

God who is the Living Holy Word....this is True Knowledge. It is different

from mere study or book learning. Certainly we are humbled by the vast

Knowledge contained within the Vedas, and all great works of Truth. They are

the Supreme Self shinning forth beyond our small human egos and intellect.

The Supreme Self is accessible directly without the mediation of a text, It

can be realized alone in a cave or on a mountain top, in a temple or on a

beach.... The scriptures are a great gift, like a road map they can direct us

to this Knowledge and if deeply meditated upon, they can reveal themselves as

verily the Supreme Self.

 

Again, I apologize if any of my statements have been misleading, though if by

doing so I find myself in the company of Ramana Maharishi and Sri

Amritanandamayi, then I am honored. In Truth, ALL that we write here on the

Advaitin net is misleading. Because we use words like: "I" and "you" We sign

our names and discuss things that exist here in the state of Maya. We are

like the blind men trying to describe the elephant grasping at the various

parts debating whether an elephant is skinny and long or flat and broad, etc.

All of us reading this at this very moment are in Truth ...One. In our

ignorance we debate as the Self laughs at its play of hide and seek in the

field of Maya. The Sanskrit word "Veda" means "Knowledge" and True Knowledge

is not confined to the texts read in an illusory world. It has and always

will exist within us, the Atman.

 

Jai Sri MA-AtmA

Love Parvati