Sadhana and meaning of translated Texts

[Guest guest]

I have been away for sometime and may have to go back.

>From my guru I recently learned that what we read in the translated

texts are nothing but academic translations. Though this does not

hold good for all writer, because when a sadhak writes, the inner

meaning is often dicussed.

I had been going through the study of Vedas and books form stalls

generally said about the different gods worshipped in it. But

practicals from guru says otherwise. These many Gods are just

attributes of the same one God.

The one Chit shakti has been called as Indra and other gods such as

Mirta, Varuna, Agni are just certain of his functional helpers.

Actually they are not diferent and Vedas pray for that DHI or the

unifying concious intellegence.

It may not be possible to go into the depth of the subject at present

but introdudtion and foreward to Rishi Aurobindo of Pondicherry ,s

book AGNIMANTRAMALA will illustrate what I mean. Compare it with

other random authors of this day translating Vedas and what I mean

will be clear.

 

To develop the DHI I would advise to sing the GYATRI daily. The

intellegence will unveil itself like a screen before the eye. It true

believe me!! Get rid of the "I" first, see the gyatri prays for all

of us to attain that intelligence not me alone.

 

If any other names of Sadhakas as authors are avaliable it would be

good to have a list of their names and books for our Group.

[Guest guest]

Hi Argyojyoti!

 

Welcome back and hope you share more of what you have been working

with lately.

 

Thank you for the references and yes let's build up a reference base

here for our members. I request all to share books that you have

found useful both in terms of addressing your needs, and that which

you have found authentic.

 

> From my guru I recently learned that what we read in the translated

> texts are nothing but academic translations. Though this does not

> hold good for all writer, because when a sadhak writes, the inner

> meaning is often dicussed.

 

 

This is often the fundamental difference in the approach between one

who depends only on books for the entire knoowledge and one who is

being constantly guided by a living Guru. Like some of the debates

that have surfaced here before, a book learner quotes and attempts to

put all into the logic of the parameters addressed in those books.

They forget, that this "Science of being and Art of Living" as

Maharishi, likes to call our living philosophy, is not all black or

white, and has tons of grey areas.

 

I usually find a few specific reasons for this difference you are

talking about and is reflected in the writings of the various

authors.

 

1. Much of the material one is talking about doesn't often have the

language to be expressed. It is an experience, and for the highest of

experiences langauge doesn't exist. We know of Ramakrishna deb's

example of attempting to explain samadhi.

 

2. Each one can only experience at their own level of consciousness

and the symbols they can identify with. The teachings are further

interpreted according to their perception levels. In the case of

Ishata devatas one can see, the rapture experienced by a devotee of

Christ is similar to that of a devotee of Kali, or Krishna, each

identifying with a different manifestation of the same Truth. Again,

Ramakrishno deb, showed how it is possible to identify with all, but

for that one has to go far beyond a certain stage of Self-

realization.

 

3. A teacher can only take a student upto their own level, and there

is a demand for teachers of all levels just as there are students of

all levels. The highest of qualified professors only address

students at the highest level of study. This is no different. Here

too, one is attracted to those teachers who need to address one's

current spiritual levels.

 

Some thoughts and look forward to hearing more from all.

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

 

 

 

*******************************************

This is a reply to post 3851 "arghyajyoti"

*****************************************

[Guest guest]

>> Each one can only experience at their own level of consciousness

and the symbols they can identify with. <<

 

This is the reason one can never claim to have lots of knowledge just

b'cos one has read Gita, Upanishads, Vedas, scriptures etc.

No matter how much we read, we can imbibe from it, only what conforms

to our level of consciousness.

 

If we read the same text say a few months later, we'll find in it a

hidden meaning that never occured to us before. And if we read the

same text at yet another instant ( a few months later), we'll find in

it, yet another hidden meaning that never caught our attention. Thus

it goes on.

 

That's why a Tamil woman saint, named 'Avaiyar', said:

"Katradu kai man alavu, kallaadadu ulagalavu".

which means:

 

"What we have learnt amounts to only a handful of mud, and what we

don't know is the size of the earth"

 

All knowledge can be gained, only when we go beyond it and get down

to the root.

For eg. Many softwares can be written in various languages, like C,

C++, Basic, VB etc. No matter which language they are written in,

they are ultimately broken down to 1s and 0s.

 

So too, by going beyond all knowledge, and getting to the basics,

(ie. by Self-Realisation), one can know all there is to know. For

knowledge itself is relative.

 

Hari Aum !!!