Knowledge, faith, and belief

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy]

Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:37 AM

advaitin

Re: Knowledge, faith, and belief

 

snip.....

 

During my travels in India during the early summer, I spent sometime

at Hrishikesh at KailAsa Ashram. I had the darshan of the

ManDaleshwar and we spent some time discussing the Isha upanishad.

One general advice he gave me is: improve your knowledge of sanskrit

and study the shankara-bhAShyAs in the original. The english or

other language translations for some of the sanskrit words can lead

you astray.

 

I think it is a very valuable advice.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

 

Namaste Murthyji.

 

Thank you for your many enlightening posts and sharing of wisdom. Sanskrit

is indeed a beautiful, precise, and a profound language in which to

communicate deep wisdom and truth. It is quite likely indeed that some or

even much meaning is lost at times in translations from Sanskrit to English.

The advice to learn Sanskrit is valuable advice for those who wish to learn

Sanskrit and understand the original texts. Many Self-Realized Sages of the

past used Sanskrit as a medium of their expression. So the advice of the

ManDaleshwar seems appropriate.

 

Still, any impression that leads one to believe that learning Sanskrit is

necessary for spiritual growth and Realization is quite misleading.

 

Learning Sanskrit has nothing to do with Self-Realization.

 

To communicate profound truths any language will do! English is quite

adequate for the job! Where there is the experience of Truth and Self, the

words follow like obedient servants. In fact, for those seeking intensely to

Know and Realize their true and original and primal state, the advice to

learn Sanskrit might be quite irrelevant. Sanskrit, or any other language

must be mastered through the mind. The Self is Realized by seeing the

unreality of the mind, by absorbing the mind into the Heart and Realization

of Self as Pure Consciousness. When the mind disappears, so does Sanskrit or

any other language, the culture one is born into as well as any and all

conditioning and identification. The whole universe appears as a shadow of

the Self, so what can be said of a particular language, culture, etc. These

are shadows of even shadows. How much importance should we give them on the

spiritual path. Well, perhaps the answer is, "As much as you like - it is up

to you."

 

Let us be clear about this. No particular language, cultural heritage,

religious background, reading of certain scriptures, or texts is *required*

for Self-Realization. What is needed always is the Direct Knowledge of the

Self through meditation, self-enquiry, and Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Language and

culture themselves are layers from which identification eventually is

withdrawn. All these things appear in consciousness. Therefore to see the

pure state prior to all language and thought is simplest. I will pass this

on to a as well. Thank you.

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.

Harper & Row; 1945. Chapter XVIII : Faith [cotd. # 5, final

 

" ' The immortality attained through the acquisition of any objective

condition (e.g., the condition--merited through good works, which have been

inspired by love of, and faith in, something less than the supreme

Godhead--of being united in act to what is worshipped) is liable to end; for

it is distinctly stated in the Scriptures that karma is never the cause of

emancipation. '

Shankara

 

Karma is the causal sequence in time, from which we are delivered solely by

'dying to' the temporal saelf and becoming united with the eternal, which is

beyond time and cause.

For 'as to the notion of a First Cause, or a Causa Sui' (to quote the words

of an eminent theologian and philosopher, Dr. F.R.Tennant), ' we have, on

the one hand, to bear in mind that we refute ourselves in trying to

establish it by extension of the application of the causal category, for

causality when universalized contains a contradiction; and, on the other, to

remember that the ultimate Ground simply 'is'.

Only when the individual also 'simply is', by reason of his union through

love-knowledge with the Ground, can there be any question of complete and

eternal liberation. "

 

[ concluded.

This is the unabridged chapter on Faith by A. Huxley.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Knowledge, faith, and belief

>Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:23:02 -0230 (NDT)

>>

>

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Harsha wrote:

> [...]

> Still, any impression that leads one to believe that learning Sanskrit is

> necessary for spiritual growth and Realization is quite misleading.

>

> Learning Sanskrit has nothing to do with Self-Realization.

>

 

namaste Harshaji,

 

I fully agree with that. And I do not mean to give the impression

that one has to learn sanskrit for SELF-realization. Books and bhAShyAs

are needed only to a certain extent. Beyond that, you make your own path.

The languages and the cultural backgrounds are immaterial. The inner

contemplation of who I am and what I am is all that matters.

 

Having said that, the point need to be made (and this I take it to

be the ManDaleshwar's advice) that when we study a translation (of a

bhAShya for example), invariably, the translator's bias, the translator's

knowledge of the two languages, and much more importantly the translator's

Knowledge of the SELF [what I mean by this is: is the translator also

a brahmavid i.e. a brahmajnAni] are important. If not, some points are

invariably lost. Here we are talking of shri shankara's bhAShya-s

which are composed in sanskrit. We know shri shankara is a brahmajnAni.

The translator (either because he is not a brahmajnAni, or because

of his lack of complete proficiency in the two languages) may not

use the right words once in a while. So, the translation will be

inevitably of a lesser quality than the original. Thus we would gain

more if we read the original than the translation.

 

I do not take ManDaleshwar's advice as saying sanskrit is essential

for SELF-realization. His advice is to read any original work in its

original language. Translation in general looses effect.

 

If we wish to read shankara-bhAShya, read it in sanskrit to get the

full effect. If we wish to read Shakespeare, read it in english.

If we wish to read War and Peace, read it in russian.

 

> To communicate profound truths any language will do! English is quite

> adequate for the job! Where there is the experience of Truth and Self, the

> words follow like obedient servants. In fact, for those seeking intensely to

> Know and Realize their true and original and primal state, the advice to

> learn Sanskrit might be quite irrelevant. Sanskrit, or any other language

> must be mastered through the mind. The Self is Realized by seeing the

> unreality of the mind, by absorbing the mind into the Heart and Realization

> of Self as Pure Consciousness. When the mind disappears, so does Sanskrit or

> any other language, the culture one is born into as well as any and all

> conditioning and identification. The whole universe appears as a shadow of

> the Self, so what can be said of a particular language, culture, etc. These

> are shadows of even shadows. How much importance should we give them on the

> spiritual path. Well, perhaps the answer is, "As much as you like - it is up

> to you."

>

> Let us be clear about this. No particular language, cultural heritage,

> religious background, reading of certain scriptures, or texts is *required*

> for Self-Realization. What is needed always is the Direct Knowledge of the

> Self through meditation, self-enquiry, and Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Language and

> culture themselves are layers from which identification eventually is

> withdrawn. All these things appear in consciousness. Therefore to see the

> pure state prior to all language and thought is simplest. I will pass this

> on to a as well. Thank you.

>

 

Fully agreed. I have no difficulty with what you have said above and

I heartily endorse it.

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

In addition your excellent observation regarding the

advantage of the knowledge of Sanskrit, I want to make

the following additional comments:

 

First the points raised by Harshaji are well taken and

we have no disagreement. Second, Murthiji's reference

is with respect avoiding misinterpretations and

misunderstandings while reading the scriptural texts.

Sometime back, Robert (Watson) rightly observed that

with his western background, he finds it rather

difficult to understand and accept advaita philosophy

as spelled out in the literature. (Robert please

correct me if I misunderstood you). Our understanding

of any text (even if we know Sanskrit) requires

knowledge on necessary background materials that are

associated with the text.

 

Let me give an example. To understand Gita completely,

reading Mahabharata is quite essential. In addition,

Ramayana and other Puranas and most important,

Bhagavatam will help the reader of Gita to understand

it better. If we are very serious then we should

approach more knowlegeable people and discuss

(Satsang). These are ladders of learning, some may

need more steps than others but a ladder is an

integral part of learning. Having said this, I know

the limitation of generalizations and it is quite

possible for some to gain the knowledge without

external efforts. They are rare individuals who are

showered with Grace. The epics and puranas contains

numerous stories of people who are blessed with

extraordinary knowledge in skills from the childhood.

But ordinary people like us have undertake the

learning process that fits our abilities.

 

Vedavyasa had the vision to compile (write) the Vedas,

Brahmasutras, Mahabharat including Bhagawad Gita, and

the eighteen Puranas so that the learning process is

elaborate and comprehensive.

 

There is a viable option for those without Sanskrit

background in understanding translations. They should

be very selective on their translations and preferably

should read several translations to get confirmation

to the meaning and context. Whenever they

contradictions, they shouldn't hesitate to consult

more knowelegeable for advice.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Ram Chandran