Vivekananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Jayji,

You have written 'Vedic text is considered to be revealed scripture -

revealed by a Rishi'. I would correct this to --- revealed *TO* a rishi.

That is what APAURUSHEYAM means and that is why rishi is called a rishi

(seer). We consider vedas as revealed scriptures, REVEALED TO RISHIS BY

ISWARA. Vedic vision or advaita siddhi or moksha is not possible without

our giving PRAAMANYAM to VEDA, because JNAANAM is PRAMAANA APEKSHAKAM.

 

'Who within us can say what that rishi was trying to put across?' - (Can be

corrected as 'can *show* what VEDA *IS* trying to *show*' or 'can teach the

vision of veda'. -- Please notice the use of words here.) Very valid

question. That is why we need sampradaya. There should have been an

unbroken lineage of gurus coming down from the rishis who saw the mantras.

The SEER himself should have started the teaching tradition. This is a

necessity. Sentence is only as good as it is understood. If a person tries

to understand a sentence himself, he will not necessarily see the vision of

the veda. So, we need the vision to have been transfered one to another

starting from the rishi. So, unless the person is a SAMPRADAYAVITH, how can

that person be a GURU of the VISION(of veda)?

Please note a very interesting point here. We can take this statement

either as an opinion of a rishi or as a vision revealed by veda. If we take

it as an opinion of rishi, it needs interpretation and any interpretation is

only an opinion of the interpreter. If it is the vedic vision, then the

GURU should have the vision and will GIVE the vision to the SISHYA. That is

why WE NEED A LIVING GURU. We cannot know if the GURU has the vision or

not. So, we need to have shraddha in our guru and go ahead. The only thing

we can check regarding a guru is if he is a SHROTHRIYA or SAMPRADAYAVITH.

Whether he is Brahmanishtavan cannot be judged but can be somewhat infered.

Someone mentioned in the forum about 'exploitation by fake gurus'.

Existence of fake doctors does not prevent us approaching any doctors at

all, does it?

 

You said : '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?'

It is understandable that you put Vivekananda's interpretation above our

interpretation of the sentence. But, if the translation itself is wrong,

the interpretation is actually only of a sentence other than what is

revealed. There is no question of scrutinising. You said that 'rishi's

teachings have to be understood'. But, you are giving Vivekananda a stature

above the VEDAS. You seem to give more weight to his interpretation than

even the revealed statement.

It is not a question of modern or ancient seer. Two seers CANNOT see

different things if both are seeing the ONE truth. If they see different

things, then it is not ONE truth. If you say 'it is ONE truth appearing as

many but they are each seeing an aspect of it' that means, neither of them

have known the fulltruth and half truth is not truth. If both say that 'it

is only ONE truth which I call as this and he calls as that' then it is

okay, what they call it is immaterial. Shastra itself gives various names

to it like 'Brahman', 'Sat', 'Atma' etc., inorder to reveal what it is.

 

You said 'view of grammarian in the matter of brahman'. I don't understand

what you meant by this phrase. Correcting a wrong translation does not mean

the corrector is only a grammarian. It is not necessary that only

grammarians use grammar and that one who knows grammar need not know

brahman.

Even in your earlier posting you asked "Remember Shankara's famous verse

'repeating all the rules of grammar...where will it lead you? Is Knowledge

of Brahman grammatical gymnastics?".

Let me tell you, if the translator of Bhaja Govindam did not now grammar, he

would have translated 'nahi nahi rakshathi dukrinj karane' as 'govinda does

not save grammar at the time of death'. Some interpreter would have

observed "At the time of death, everything vanishes... even the grammar

which is learnt for 50 years vanishes... etc., etc.," The point is,

Shankara does not say grammar is useless. He only says, grammar alone is

not the end. But, to correct a grammatically wrong interpretation itself is

not grammatical gymnastics or anything like that.

 

Your viewpoint seems to imply that a guru is free to twist the vedic

statement even if grammatically wrong, in order to present his point of

view. That way, guru's view gains PRAAMAANYAM and veda becomes secondary.

That is dangerous, since the PRAMANA has to be APAURUSHEYA, ie., should not

be one individual's creation. If you say the wrong literal translation of

the statement is the correct VISION, you are implying that VEDA gave a

grammatically wrong statement and that too giving an ENTIRELY different

meaning. IF YOU START INTERPRETING VEDAS LIKE THIS, VEDA LOOSES ITS

PRAMAANYAM OR VALIDITY, atleast in your buddhi. You yourself said 'the

verse is considered to be revealed scripture - revealed by a Rishi'. 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.

 

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.

Gurucharana pankaha

Kalyan