Vivekananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Jayji,

My point was not to offend anyone. I also didn't mean to belittle any great

rishis. I was only talking about giving the required PRAAMAANYA to vedas so

that it will benefit the sadhaka or mumukshu. The unshakable commitment to

the guru and his words is a greatest virtue only a few possess. My

intention was not to meander in those sensitive zones. A few points I need

to clarify on your mail:

<snip>

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'

 

This posting has given a lot of importance to use of correct grammar and yet

we can see that the posting has defects - for example it says:-

 

"the word did not now grammar......"

 

"now grammar" ?? Is that good English??

<snip>

 

I am sorry. It was a typo. I wanted to type 'know', but the 'k' fell off

without my (k)nowledge. I didn't (k)now that this will be used to prove a

point. Anyway, grammatical mistake was not the point. I was only talking

about the sentence being translated wrongly, to mean an entirely different

thing (if it were to).

 

You wrote "Same is true with Brahman - no Rishi of any stature has ever

said he can tell you what is Brahman. And yet we have these books called the

'Vedas' (Material like 'Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' pops up in these

texts). And then we like to debate: 'Vedas' are 'Apurushay' and are above

the 'Rishi' etc."

 

I wouldn't agree with this statement. All rishis have told that they can

tell what Brahman is.(I am using 'rishis' instead of 'vedas' as their words

are same). Infact, they spoke about Brahman only because they can tell

something about it. If they cannot tell anything about Brahman, why should

they be talking about Brahman?(especially they being the first ones to

introduce the word called 'Brahman') I think, you are saying this because

of the paradoxical nature of the statements about brahman, like 'brahman

cannot be known as an object', 'words come back from brahman', 'that which

is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest is brahman', 'one

who says he knows does not know' etc., etc., Superficially, it might look as

though these sentences don't say anything about Brahman except that nothing

can be said about brahman. But, the reality is, they say EVERYTHING about

brahman.

 

For example, 'brahman cannot be known..' sentence says that the ONLY thing

that cannot be objectified IS Brahman. It is trying to reveal what Brahman

IS. There is no such thing in the world that we already know of or yet to

be known, which cannot be objectified. Everything including the mind is

objectified and known by the sakshi which is the only non-objectifiable

thing. So, the sentence points out that the non-objectifiable portion of

the I is indeed Brahman. Similarly '..greater than greatest and smaller

than the smallest..' statement says that brahman is not within the realm of

any object but outside it. Again, the only thing outside 'object realm' is

the 'subject'. (even mind, intellect, body etc., fall under 'object realm').

Are these sentences saying 'there is something called brahman..we don't

know what it is... it cannot be known' etc., or are they revealing what

brahman is? They are only revealing brahman. But, brahman being what it

is, it has to be revealed by these paradoxes. Brahman is not entirely

unknown to anyone, because it is one oneself, yet it also not known exactly

what it is. Hence, veda uses paradoxes and reveals oneself to oneself.

 

The quotes I remember to support that rishis say brahman is knowable through

vedas only, are 'tam aupanishadam brahma broohi', 'shastreika gamyam',

'vedena vidanti vedam', 'vedanta vignaana

sunishchithaarthaha..parimuchyanthi..', 'tat vignaanaartham gurum eva

abhigachcheth srothriyam brahmanishtam' etc., etc.,

 

I am not the one who is saying shastra is above any individual. Great

acharyas like Vyasa, Shankara, Barthruhari, Manu and others say this.

 

You said, "Suppose the language and expressions of one Rishi impresses us -

we should happily use these for our own spiritual progress rather than make

comments about the expressions of another Rishi."

 

I thought we are discussing REALITY or ADVAITAM in this forum and not our

impression on Rishi's expressions.

 

You said: "Suppose a rocket scientist uses Newton's Laws of gravitation and

is able to

make 'do' with these laws for his purposes - nobody objects.

Yet another scientist who is working in cosmology will say he would rather

use Einstein's gravitational laws as expressed in general relativity for his

understanding of the cosmos. Newton's laws will not suffice -- That is

fine too.

 

The same is true in the field of spirituality.

Which Rishi's expressions attract us more will depend on our own

requirements and the state of our own spiritual development."

 

What you said is correct about making something 'work'. (For gaining

eligibility for this jnaana we need to do karma with yoga buddhi and various

things help us progress, but we are not discussing the preparation part

here). But, we look upon VEDAS as REVEALING texts. We don't DO (and need

to DO) anything after listening to Shastra, in order to gain MOKSHA.

Shastras REVEAL the REALITY at the time of being listened to. That is

SHABDA PRAMAANA. So, there is no question of either INTERPRETATION or

making something 'work'. Jnaana is only a COGNITIVE process (SEEING what

VEDA SHOWS) and that is MOKSHA.