Vivekananda

[Guest guest]

Response to a posting from Kalyan: -

 

Thanks for your explanation about the role of Swami Vivekananda's teachings

in your personal understanding of spirituality. The greatest mistake we make

is not to be able to distinguish the teaching from the teacher. Suppose we

read a Vedic text like 'Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' -- that verse is

considered to be revealed scripture - revealed by a Rishi. Who within us can

say what that rishi was trying to put across? We need to be a Rishi to

really say we understand what is meant by this verse. What good is a

grammarian in the matter of Brahman ?Is it not a great pity that we think

the meaning as exemplified by a Rishi of Vivekananda's stature has to

scrutinised against the teachings of ancient seers?

 

Nay - Friends, I have to say, how foolish of us to think that those ancient

rishis were 'More realised than the rishis of today. What qualifications do

we have to pass such judgements? In fact it would be more rational to say we

would rather learn about Brahman from a teacher who speaks in our times and

in a language of our times.

 

jay

============reply to this posting from Kalyan>>

 

Vivekananda

 

Sorry if my comments had hurt the sentiments of some people. I was not

discussing Swami Vivekananda in my mail, but only wanted to point out how a

wrong interpretation can cause damage. The reason I mentioned Swami

Vivekananda's name was because he has forcefully used these translations at

many places including the famous Chicago address (if I remember correctly).

So, the earliest source of this translation we find is his. Since we are

discussing vedanta shastra, I feel, we should be objective in our presenting

our views. Moreover, I didn't mean that Swami Vivekananda has done damage

to the society. (Personally, I owe a lot to Swami Vivekananda and am one

who has studied his complete works and am a student of Ramakrishna mission.

I have been inspired and sustained by his words since 18 years now.) I only

said that the wrong translation of 'ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti' has done

damage. It need not have been Swami vivekananda's translation at all. In

any case, Swami Vivekananda's greatness is what it is, inspite of my

recognition or non-recognition of it. Beyond any doubt, the whole humanity

and especially most of the seekers owe tremendously to this great man.

When it comes to understanding vedanta, we have to be objective and open.

Even our emotional attachment to personalities make us subjective.

While in this context, I want to discuss another point, about status of guru

with respect to shastra. (Just wanted to point out that I am not discussing

any particular person but a general subject matter.)

It is a catch-22 situation, because both GURU and SHASTRA are considered

same by us (Shraddha is defined as 'GURU SHASTRA VAKYESHU VISWASHAHA' -

trusting words of GURU and SHASTRA) what do we take as final authority?

That is the reason why UPANISHAD itself says 'Shrothriyam Brahma Nishtam

Gurum Eva Abhigachcheth', meaning 'take refuge in one who is learned in

vedantha through sampradaya and is also one having nishta in Brahmna vastu'.

One has to notice that BOTH aspects are important, Sampradayavithvam and

Brahmanishta. One having both can alone be a teacher. An asampradayavith

jnaani, if it is a possibility, cannot be a teacher (Shankara says

'asampradayavith moorkavath upekshaneeyaha' - A person not belonging to

sampradaya is equivalent to an ignorant man). An ajnaani and a

sampradayavith is still not qualified to be a teacher. So, GURU VAKYA and

SHASTRA VAKYA will not be two different things if it comes from a Shrothriya

and Brahma nishta, and such guru has to be approached in order to gain this

knowledge.

Gurucharana pankaha

Kalyan

[Guest guest]

Aum:

 

First, let me congratulate you for your excellent scholarship with humility and

clarity of expression. I fully respect what you say but I want to express my

disagreements with you on several points.

 

In your earlier post, that you have rightly pointed out that "moksha" is

"shastra eka gamyam" (knowable only by shastra). To be consistent with the views

expressed by seers and sages of the Upanishads, this should necessarily imply

that "Truth of shastra" is the Truth of the Ultimate Reality. I am sure that you

will agree that the Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and Bhagavad Gita contains the

Truth of shastra. Then why did we have three great Acharyars : Shankara,

Ramanuja and Madhava interpreted them differently and these three jnanis were

able to justify their interpretations to be fully agreeable to the Truth of

Vedas. The three philosophies, Advaita, Visitadwaita and Dwaita are well

established philosophical systems with great number of followers who believe in

them. These three sages have understood that the ultimate Truth is Brahman but

they call in different names. These are not the only philosophical systems that

exist in India and we have Saiva Siddhantam and Shaktism to mention a few

others. All these s

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.15:

Truth has many aspects. Infinite truth has infinite expressions. Though the

sages speak in diverse ways, they express one and the same Truth. Ignorant is he

who says, "What I say and know is true; others are wrong." It is because of this

attitude of the ignorant that there have been doubts and misunderstandings about

God. This attitude it is that causes dispute among men. But all doubts vanish

when one gains self-control and attain tranquillity by realizing the heart of

Truth. Thereupon dispute, too, is at an end.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3:

Like the bee, gathering honey from different flowers, the wise man accepts the

essence of different scriptures and sees only the good in all religions.

 

Let me turn you attention back to Bhagavad Gita and this list discussed the

following two important verses which were subject to different interpretations

by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava.

 

Bhagavad Gita unifies the currents of flow of the religious and philosophical

thoughts of sages and saints of India. Gita has been recognized for centuries

as an orthodox scripture of the Hindu religion possessing equal authority with

the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra. These three texts together form the

triple canon (prasthaana-traya). Three stalwart teachers of Vedanta - Sankara,

Ramanuja and Madhava have justified their doctrines through their commentaries

to Gita, Upanishads and Brahama Sutra. The commentaries of Gita by these great

teachers can help us to understand the Vedanta Philosophy overall and Advaita in

particular.

 

Chapter 2: Yoga of Knowledge (Verses 16 & 17)

Translations and interpretations of the Verses are from Dr. Radhakrishnan's "The

Bhagavad Gita." Discussions and errors are mine.

 

naa sato vidyate bhaavo naa bhavo vidyate satah (Verse 16)

ubhayor api drsto ‘ntas tv anayos tattvadars'ibhih

 

Of the non-existent there is no coming to be; of the existent there is no

ceasing to be. The conclusion about these two has been perceived by the seers

of Truth.

 

avinaasi tu tad viddhu yena sarvam idam tatam (Verse 17)

vinaasam avyayasya ‘sya na kas'cit kartum arhati

 

Know thou that by which all this is pervaded is indestructible. Of this

immutable being, no one can bring about the destruction.

 

Interpretation and Discussion

Sankara distinguishes real (sat) and unreal (asat) by the following: The non

failure of consciousness is sat and its failure is asat! The consciousness of

the objects varies but not the existence of the consciousness! The unreal which

is the passing show of the world, blurs the unchanging reality which is forever

manifest. Not even Is'vara, the Supreme Lord can cause the destruction of the

Self and its reality is self-established (svatassiddha). The scriptures serve to

remove the adhyaaropana or superposition of the attributes alien to the SELF.

(Advaita Philosophy)

 

Ramanuja identifies unreal as the body and real as the soul. Ramanuja also

infers qualitative unity and equality in the presence of numerical plurality of

souls! (Philosophy of Vishistadvaita)

 

Madhava asserts that the first part of this verse shows the presence of duality!

According to Sanskrit grammatical structure, "Vidyate bhaavo" and

"Vidyate-abhaavah" are both valid expressions and Madhava interprets as

Vidyate-abhaavah and asserts duality. There is no destruction of the un manifest

(avyakta) prakriti. Sat of course is indestructible. (Dwaita Philosophy)

 

To me, these sages and their diversified interpretations has done great service

and not damage to the Hindu society. We have realize that Sanskrit is a

communication media to understand Truth and in itself is not the Truth. I have

great admiration, love and respect for Sanskrit and I have to be detached when

my goal is to find the Truth.

 

In conclusion, your posting strongly indicates that you believe in Swami

Vivekananda but you somehow feels that his translation is not believable. Great

Sages such as Swami Vivekananda have strong conviction to their belief that the

expression, "Truth is one, sages call it by various names" comes from his heart

with great conviction. For example, I have strong faith in Shankara and I will

never take a stand to question his wisdom. I will take extra time to find why I

am not able to understand what he says. This quotation from Gandhiji describe

what Conviction really means!:

 

"I am a devotee of the Gita and a firm believer in the inexorable law of karma.

Even the least little tripping or stumbling is not without its cause and I have

wondered why one who has tried to follow the Gita in thought, word and deed

should have any ailment. The doctors have assured me that this trouble of high

blood- pressure is entirely the result of mental strain and worry. If that is

true, it is likely that I have been unnecessarily worrying myself, unnecessarily

fretting and secretly harboring passions like anger, lust, etc. The fact that

any event or incident should disturb my serious efforts, means not that the Gita

Ideal is defective but that my devotion to its defective. The Gita Ideal is true

for all time, my understanding of it and observance of it

is full of flaws."

 

Harijan, 29 February 1936. ("What is Hinduism?" Mahatma Gandhi, National Book

Trust of India, page, 95).

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

"kalyankumar muthurajan" wrote:

>'Ekam sat vipraa bahuda vadanti' has been translated by some as >'Truth is

>one, sages call it by various names'. This is often taken >as a quotation

>to say that there are many means to moksha.

 

I think the problem here is not with Vivekananda's use of this particular

translation, but with the use of the translation to justify many means to

Moksha. On the face of it, I think the translation is just as suitable as

the one kalyankumar muthurajan proposes further on. Sages do call the

"Truth" by many names: Atman, Brahman, Brahma-vidya, Atma-vidya, Atma-bodhi,

apara vidya, etc. And as Ashish Chandra has aptly pointed out, the rest of

the sloka continues:

 

"They have styled (him, the Sun), Indra, Mitra, Varun.a, Agni, and he is the

celestial, well-winged Garutmat, for learned priests call one by many names

as they speak of Agni, Yama, Ma_taris'van. [Hi, the Sun: Sun is assumed;

Nirukta assumes the Agni: agni is all the divinities (Aitareya

Bra_hman.a2.3)]."

 

In other words the names used for the Ultimate Reality are many. If people

take this to mean that there are various ways to realize moksha then that is

a matter of *their* interpretation. But it is surely not Vivekananda's fault

if they do so.

 

In my view, kalyankumar muthurajan's alternate translation of "Ekam sat

bahuda (iti) vipraa vadanti" as "It is the ONE reality which appears as MANY

- So say the sages", is a little more appropirate given the context, but

both translations, when seen in context appear to say basically the same

thing.

 

Compare:

 

"Truth is one, sages call it by various names. They have styled (him, the

Sun), Indra, Mitra, Varun.a, Agni, and he is the celestial, well-winged

Garutmat, for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of Agni,

Yama, Ma_taris'van."

 

"It is the ONE reality which appears as MANY - So say the sages. They have

styled (him, the Sun), Indra, Mitra, Varun.a, Agni, and he is the celestial,

well-winged Garutmat, for learned priests call one by many names as they

speak of Agni, Yama, Ma_taris'van."

 

 

In fact, the major problem with both translations, as given here, would seem

to be that the pronoun "him" and "he" are used in reference to the "Truth"

and the "One Reality". Otherwise, both appear to be suitable.

 

Out of context, the alternate translations appear to say slightly different

things. But I can't see how the translation used by Vivekananda can be used

as a justification for the idea of many means any more than the alternate

version "the one reality appears as many." 'The One appearing as many' or

'calling Truth different names' doesn't necessarily equate into many pahs.

But if one was to interpret them that way, I think it is just as easy to say

that the appearance of the One Reality in many forms suggests that there are

many means in which to 'come into contact' with Brahman as it is to say that

many names for Truth imply many means. Either way though, you need to make a

jump.

 

 

with love and joy

 

Veronica (D. Hill)

[Guest guest]

Namaste

>"kalyankumar muthurajan"

>Two seers CANNOT see different things if both are seeing the ONE >truth.

>If they see different things, then it is not ONE truth.

 

Yes. But once seers come away from their *direct experience* of Truth as it

were, and attempt to communicate their vision in the inherently dualistic

framework of language, their vision of Truth is going to appear differently.

In other words, they will choose different language based on their own

*personal* and *social* background. After all, isn't it their calling to

communicate the Truth in different ways because they need to conform to the

environment in which they find themselves. What was a suitable form of

expression 3,000 years ago might not have been suitable in 788 CE. Otherwise

Sankara's words would have been exactly the same as those of the Rishis of

the Rg Veda. But his words were not exactly the same. Surely, they were

pointing to the same Reality or Truth. Yet, Sankara needed to explain and

comment on the original Vedic expression in order to bring it closer within

the grasp of the people of his age. So while he direct vision of Truth may

be the same, the media and form of expression will differ.

 

I think the issues you are discussing are important ones and I respect your

concerns.

>The minimum requirement to understand a statement, that too a >revealed

>one, is that the statement should be translated as said by >Rishi. The

>vision of the statement can be presented next. But, if >the translation

>itself is wrong, vision is BOUND to be wrong.

 

This appears to be very sound as far as the original Sanskrit goes, but in

terms of translating Sanskrit into English or other languages, all

translation involves interpretation. Suitable equivalents must be found for

words and that involves some translation of meaning. But even if absolutely

equivalent words can be agreed upon, simply literal translations into

English will not accurately portray the originally intended meaning.

Questions of style come into play here. So we have over fifty translations

of the Tao Te Ching into English alone.

>A wrong interpretation is okay and we can live with it until we find >the

>right interpretation. But, a wrong translation is NEVER >ACCEPTABLE even

>if Shankara were to do it.

 

A wrong translation may not be acceptable but who is to say what a *right*

translation is. If we follow the logic of this argument then we need Rishis

to translate the Vedas into English. But being a seer would not be enough.

They would also need to be first-rate scholars with complete linguistic and

cultural fluency in both languages and cultural meduiums.

 

Maybe this has happened. My knowledge in this case is limited. I do know,

however, that Sri Aurobindo was able to communicate fluently in Sanskrit and

in English. Radhakrishnan was also a great communicator in both languages

but I don't know if he qualifies as a Rishi in the strict sense. His

understanding though was vast and I believe that we can rely on his

translations. After all, it isn't simply the words, but the seekers

themselves who supply the meanings, and whatever the words may be, seekers

in different circumstances will *see* different meanings. And this is why, I

suppose, some of our fellow list members insist on following the traditional

teaching methods of the Vedanta lineage.

 

with love and joy

 

Veronica