Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and > > > > unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up > > > both > > > > truth and untruth; having given up both truth > > > and > > > > untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] > > > [i.e. > > > > duality]." > > > > > > > > Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan, > > > > Adyar Library & Research > > > Center, 1978 > > > > > > > > > Dear ShankarRamanji, > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > I would like to share my views with the fourum on > > > the aforesaid topic > > > in two or three postings........... Dear Advaitins, Madhusudhana Saraswati writes the commentary on the above mentioned verse which is as follows. Abandoning all forms of rites and duties, take refuge in Me alone. I shall free you from all sins. Hence do not lament. Abandoing, ignoring as something to be performed all forms of rites and duties without exception some of which are caste duties, some duties of the stages of life, and some general duties, whether or not being perfomed take refuge in me, in God, alone who am without a second, who am the basis of and the dispenser of the fruits of all the rites and duties. With the conviction, 'Let there be duties or let there not be duties. What is the use of them which depend on other factors? I shall become self fulfilled merely through God's Grace which, on the other hand, does not depend on anything else, adore through constant thought the blessed lord Vasudeva alone who is the emobodiment of supreme bliss through and through and is infinite. Constantly contemplate on the lord with an intense love that is preceded by such deliberation as, 'This itself is the highest reality there is nothing surpassing this, which is a mental modification devoed of all thoughts of the non-self and which is unbroken like a line of pouring oil. this is the idea. I have cheked at 3 commentaries on the afore mentioned verse. Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja and Madhusudhana Saraswati all have translated dharma as the duties and rites not as truth. For truth there is a seperate word in sanskrit which all of us know Satya. Can i say that by transalting dharma into truth the translator has committed a mistake? As far as dharma or duty is concrned it is entirely dependent upon caste of the ashrama of life. The dharma prescribed for one ashrama need not be performed by the person who is in another ashrama of life. As far as the devotion to the lord is concrned one can abandon all the dharmas because supreme love or parabhakti doesnt require any external help or doesnt have to follow any rules as in case of the Jnana. Here devotee takes reuge in the lord and surrenders himself to him totally. Here the emphasis as per my understanding is even though para bhakti is not possible for all one can start with offering of the fruits of one action or trying to get rid of the doership. And when reaches the apex of devotion naturally all duties and rites will be transcended by the lover of god. But we have to note one point he who has totally surrendered to the lord, will not take a single false step. As Sage Narada says in the Bhakti Sutras Thirtam Kurvanti Thirtani etc. They are purest souls on the earth and in whatever direction they go they will be blessing to the mankind. Sri Shankaracharya also says- Shanto mahanto nivasanti santo vasantavat loka hitam charantah Tirna swayam etc. If this is the state of the devotee who can he utter an untruth. One utters an untruth either with an intention of causing harm to somebody or to gain an undue advantage or just to make fun of another. All the possible causes of untruth cannot be found in the devotee of lord. One can renounce the dharma ie duties and rites as it will be applicable to the people with different stages of life. But one cannot say an untruth because satya is called trikalabhadita. An uttered lie is a lie it cannot be justified on any ground. Utterence of untruth indicates that the aspirant is far from the goal. As far as my feeling is concerned i think that uttrence of untruth indicates the hyprocricy in the chamber of heart (theft in the chamber of heart as Sri Ramakrishna used to say). He used to tell that the lord will forgive everything except this unpardonable sin. Because if there is hypocricy in oneself one consciously deceives another by way of uttering an untruth or causing harm etc. and i feel it certainly deserves punishment. As far as Shankarramanji's question as to why Sri Ramakrishna had great reservation for giving up of truthfulness like any other pair of opposite i am yet arrive at the conclusion. I am trying my level best to understand the statement. Anybody who sheds light on this will be of immense help in my quest. Please do coment on the discussion the topic, HARI OM TAT SAT Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and > > > > > unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up > > > > both > > > > > truth and untruth; having given up both truth > > > > and > > > > > untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] > > > > [i.e. > > > > > duality]." > > > > > > > > > > Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan, > > > > > Adyar Library & Research > > > > Center, 1978 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear ShankarRamanji, > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > I would like to share my views with the fourum on > > > > the aforesaid topic > > > > in two or three postings........... > I have cheked at 3 commentaries on the afore mentioned verse. Sri > Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja and Madhusudhana Saraswati all have > translated dharma as the duties and rites not as truth. For truth > there is a seperate word in sanskrit which all of us know Satya. Can > i say that by transalting dharma into truth the translator has > committed a mistake? > Namaste, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:4:14 has this : "....dharmaat paraM naasti....yo vai sa dharmaH satyaM vai tat.... "There is nothing higher than Righteousness...That righteousness is verily Truth..." (Sw. Madhavananda transl.) [ for Shankara Bhashya on this: http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/upnishad.php3?toption=12 ] Regards,, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: --- In advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and > > > > > unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up > > > > both > > > > > truth and untruth; having given up both truth > > > > and > > > > > untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] > > > > [i.e. > > > > > duality]." > > > > > > > > > > Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan, > > > > > Adyar Library & Research > > > > Center, 1978 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear ShankarRamanji, > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > I would like to share my views with the fourum on > > > > the aforesaid topic > > > > in two or three postings........... > I have cheked at 3 commentaries on the afore mentioned verse. Sri > Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanuja and Madhusudhana Saraswati all have > translated dharma as the duties and rites not as truth. For truth > there is a seperate word in sanskrit which all of us know Satya. From Sankarraman Dear sir, Thank you very much for your well-meaning response and clarification. Your position that the translator has erred by using the word truth to refer to dharma is acceptable, except that in empirical realms there is bound to be confusion in explaining the transcendental, which the translator cannot help unless he explains this abstruse aphorism in an effective way. I think in the English language there is a distinction between the words reality and truth, both of them being derived from the Latin, the former referable to phenomenal entities, as against the latter, the transcendental. There is a beautiful verse in the geetha in the second chapter to the following effect:"Of the real there is no non-existence, and of the unreal, no existence." It is in this context that the above text of the Upanishad text has to be understood. What we practice as truth in every day life is tinged with our motives, emanating from a selfish cent re, which is the cause of all distinctions producing fear and desire to perpetuate the unreal existence. I think that until and unless one tears asunder this veil of ignorance, whatever truth one practices is only based on some error, definitely not to be equated with the transcendental realm of truth. I think for a man who has attained this vision everything, the error included, is truth. It is in this context the question arises in regard to the practice of truth, in daily life, urged by great men, which has been reported to have been practiced to the extent of being conformable to the changing, illusory, relative, objective realms, in the life of Sri Ramakrishna. A transcendentalist need not practice anything, I think. Whatever he does is only truth. It is only in the life of a man subject to avidya, the metaphysical ignorance, confounding the Self with the non-self, such practices are prescribed by way of purification required. The verbal truth, however assiduously practiced in one's daily life is based on a cent re, being still untruth. Why I am asking this question, apart from the intellectual, philosophical implications of truth, is that, in order to survive, all of us cannot help uttering untruth in worldly life. How are we to demarcate truth from untruth in empirical transactions? We can give some Clever explanations hiding under the bushel our basic selfishness, the cause of untruth. Yours sincerely, Sankarraman Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and > > > > unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up > > > both > > > > truth and untruth; having given up both truth > > > and > > > > untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] > > > [i.e. > > > > duality]." > > > > > > > > Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan, > > > > Adyar Library & Research > > > Center, 1978 > > > > > > Prof.A.A.Ramanathan has righly translated Dharma and Adharma as righteoussness and unrighteousness and NOT as truth and untruth. I,know Prof.Ramanathan of Adyar Library Research Centre .He was an excellent scholar of Sanskrit-that he would not commit such a silly mistake. It is the error of the person who has quoted (misquoted?) his translation.Satyam and Asatyam ,he has translated as Truth and untruth.I don't know why there is so much of beating around the bush(Jalpam) of a thing which does not exist--ssrvj Religion and spirituality Advaita Bhagavad gita Visit your group "advaitin" on the web. advaitin DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and > > > > unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up > > > both > > > > truth and untruth; having given up both truth > > > and > > > > untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] > > > [i.e. > > > > duality]." > > > > > > > > Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan, > > > > Adyar Library & Research > > > Center, 1978 > > > > > > Prof.A.A.Ramanathan has righly translated Dharma and Adharma as righteoussness and unrighteousness and NOT as truth and untruth. I,know Prof.Ramanathan of Adyar Library Research Centre .He was an excellent scholar of Sanskrit-that he would not commit such a silly mistake. It is the error of the person who has quoted (misquoted?) his translation.Satyam and Asatyam ,he has translated as Truth and untruth.I don't know why there is so much of beating around the bush(Jalpam) of a thing which does not exist--ssrvj Religion and spirituality Advaita Bhagavad gita Visit your group "advaitin" on the web. advaitin DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: --- In advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and > > > > unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up > > > both > > > > truth and untruth; having given up both truth > > > and > > > > untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] > > > [i.e. > > > > duality]." > > > > > > > > Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan, > > > > Adyar Library & Research > > > Center, 1978 > > > > > > > > > Dear ShankarRamanji, > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > I would like to share my views with the fourum on > > > the aforesaid topic > > > in two or three postings........... Dear Advaitins, Madhusudhana Saraswati writes the commentary on the above mentioned verse which is as follows. Abandoning all forms of rites and duties, take refuge in Me alone. Apropos the above message from Vinayakji , let me make clear one point Vinayakji, which is to say, an image of a speaker of truth and the follower of all the virtues, does no make one the possessor of those virtues. It is a greater untruth to have an image of truth to uphold truth by virtue of sheer fear and social ostracism and religious conditioning. A total non-be liver like Bertrand Russel had been more truth full than many religious people. Many of our following these percepts are on account of fear of law, enactment of legislation and many other things which we might cover up in the name of religion. We would like to appear truthful rather than come out with an authentic acceptance of our untruth which must be necessarily the first step towards truth. Lastly, as long as we function from a cent re of individuality, any amount of talking about truth is only based on untruth. A man who has touched the realm of truth may not be aware of the distinction between truth and untruth, for even to have it some gimmick of the intellect is necessary. Yours sincerely Sankarraman Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 --- Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote: > > Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: --- > In advaitin, "Vinayaka" > <vinayaka_ns> wrote: > Dear Advaitins, > > Madhusudhana Saraswati writes the commentary on > the above mentioned > verse which is as follows. > > Abandoning all forms of rites and duties, take > refuge in Me alone. Apropos the above > message from Vinayakji , let me make clear one point > Vinayakji, which is to say, an image of a speaker > of truth and the follower of all the virtues, does > no make one the possessor of those virtues. It is a > greater untruth to have an image of truth to uphold > truth by virtue of sheer fear and social ostracism > and religious conditioning. A total non-be liver > like Bertrand Russel had been more truth full than > many religious people. Many of our following these > percepts are on account of fear of law, enactment of > legislation and many other things which we might > cover up in the name of religion. We would like to > appear truthful rather than come out with an > authentic acceptance of our untruth which must be > necessarily the first step towards truth. Lastly, > as long as we function from a cent re of > individuality, any amount of talking about truth is > only based on untruth. A man who has > touched the realm of truth may not be aware of > the distinction between truth and untruth, for even > to have it some gimmick of the intellect is > necessary. > Yours sincerely > Sankarraman Dear Shankarramanji, I agree with your view fully. Verily acceptance of our untruth is the first step towards truth. Even though i am comparitively young i had an opportunity to meet lot of poeple which was a pre-requisite for my profession in my purvashram and i have seen and interacted with contemporary religious personalities also to some extent. One thing i have observed that at one level or the other all people are stuck.(Hope people will not call me pessimist :-)) Each one try to wear a mask and try to project a psuedo personality to adjust with the outside world. Verily it is one of the gratest virtues to tell the self damaging truth. That requires tremendous willpower and strength. As far as agnostics like burtrand russell are concerned they are 100% sincere because they do not care for any social, religious conditioning. An atheist is 100 % sincere in telling that god doesnt exist but we are insincere becasue we speak a lot without a bit of realisation. But i feel that religion calls for faith also which is absolutely necessary. HARI OM TAT SAT, Yours in the Lord, Br. Vinayaka. Lastly, > as long as we function from a cent re of > individuality, any amount of talking about truth is > only based on untruth. A man who has > touched the realm of truth may not be > > > > > Photos > Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add > photos, events, holidays, whatever. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > ________ DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.