June Topic: mAyA in the vedas: the One and the many (kenneth)

[Guest guest]

--- kvl1949 wrote:

>

> Yes, it makes an intuitive sense.

> This brings to mind what the American poet Ezra

>In a way, Pound indicates that the

> poet follows this 'virtuous cycle,' as it were;

> from sound comes speech; from speech comes silence;

> and from silence comes the truth, which the poet

> allows to pass cleanly through himself. This

> intuitive process perhaps resembles that that of the

> creation as well as that way in which Vedas were

> heard and revealed by the rishis.

> Does this, in turn, make any sense?

>

Good Morning Kenneth,

Not only sense, this is knowledge. It is why the Vedas

are Chhandas from which we get the English 'chant'.

I have said this in another posting but maybe it

should be repeated here: In order for the mantra to

have full effect a triad of 'names' are pronounced:

the name of the Rshi, the name of the deity and the

name of the chant which establishes the order. This

draws, focusses these powers into the word-act.

These Chhandas, metres, count the number of syllables

and 'games' are played with their order. If you know

the music of Bach then you will find in it the play of

the Chhandas.

The most famous of these is the gAyatrI. In this case

the stanza usually consists of 24 syllables, variously

arranged, but usually as a triplet of 3 pAdas of 8

syllables each, or in one line of 16 syllables and a

second of 8 syllables.

There are 11 varieties of this metre and the number of

syllables varies accordingly from 19 to 33.

 

That, of course, is just information, but it helps to

unpick the mantras when the metre is known although

the real understanding of a mantra is in its wholeness

which can only he heard and not analysed.

 

Which takes us back to your own observation.

Really words should have a built-in suicide gene. Once

their knowledge has been revealed they should

disappear, bit like the 'creation/emanation' really.

For example, I used this little imaginary tale

recently:

'Imagine that at the station of our departure there is

a man trying to engage others in conversation.

“Do you know the word upAsana?” he asks one traveller.

“No,” is the forceful reply as the traveller rushes

by, “and I have no time to find out.”

So he repeats the question to another who is standing

quietly by the platform.

“Yes,” is the immediate answer. “It comes from upa

meaning near and Asana (root as) which means a

posture. So it may be understood as ‘sitting near’,

for example. Some also say that it means meditation.”

“Thank you,” says our questioner. “What are you

sitting near in meditation?”

“You do not understand,” the other commands. “The

‘sitting near’ does not mean sitting near anything. It

only indicates that I am sitting near myself, atman,

or that through the intention to meditate I am

approaching that atman. However as atman is the

universal self, brahman, in reality there is no

separation and no sitting near. Proximity has no place

in omnipresence. So I ask you in return, what do you

think it means to say that you are sitting near

oneself?”

“I see that you are presenting a non-dual teaching.

And so you will understand my silence if I fail to

reply.”

 

This went on a bit more but you get the gist of it.

 

I will soon post some stuff on YAska and the fruition

of language in the Rgveda and I look forward to your

comments on that,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

=====

‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./