Vivekananda

[Guest guest]

Response to a posting from Kalyan: -

 

Thanks for your explanation about the role of Swami Vivekananda's teachings

in your personal understanding of spirituality. The greatest mistake we make

is not to be able to distinguish the teaching from the teacher. Suppose we

read a Vedic text like 'Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' -- that verse is

considered to be revealed scripture - revealed by a Rishi. Who within us can

say what that rishi was trying to put across? We need to be a Rishi to

really say we understand what is meant by this verse. What good is a

grammarian in the matter of Brahman ?Is it not a great pity that we think

the meaning as exemplified by a Rishi of Vivekananda's stature has to

scrutinised against the teachings of ancient seers?

 

Nay - Friends, I have to say, how foolish of us to think that those ancient

rishis were 'More realised than the rishis of today. What qualifications do

we have to pass such judgements? In fact it would be more rational to say we

would rather learn about Brahman from a teacher who speaks in our times and

in a language of our times.

 

jay

============reply to this posting from Kalyan>>

 

Vivekananda

 

Sorry if my comments had hurt the sentiments of some people. I was not

discussing Swami Vivekananda in my mail, but only wanted to point out how a

wrong interpretation can cause damage. The reason I mentioned Swami

Vivekananda's name was because he has forcefully used these translations at

many places including the famous Chicago address (if I remember correctly).

So, the earliest source of this translation we find is his. Since we are

discussing vedanta shastra, I feel, we should be objective in our presenting

our views. Moreover, I didn't mean that Swami Vivekananda has done damage

to the society. (Personally, I owe a lot to Swami Vivekananda and am one

who has studied his complete works and am a student of Ramakrishna mission.

I have been inspired and sustained by his words since 18 years now.) I only

said that the wrong translation of 'ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti' has done

damage. It need not have been Swami vivekananda's translation at all. In

any case, Swami Vivekananda's greatness is what it is, inspite of my

recognition or non-recognition of it. Beyond any doubt, the whole humanity

and especially most of the seekers owe tremendously to this great man.

When it comes to understanding vedanta, we have to be objective and open.

Even our emotional attachment to personalities make us subjective.

While in this context, I want to discuss another point, about status of guru

with respect to shastra. (Just wanted to point out that I am not discussing

any particular person but a general subject matter.)

It is a catch-22 situation, because both GURU and SHASTRA are considered

same by us (Shraddha is defined as 'GURU SHASTRA VAKYESHU VISWASHAHA' -

trusting words of GURU and SHASTRA) what do we take as final authority?

That is the reason why UPANISHAD itself says 'Shrothriyam Brahma Nishtam

Gurum Eva Abhigachcheth', meaning 'take refuge in one who is learned in

vedantha through sampradaya and is also one having nishta in Brahmna vastu'.

One has to notice that BOTH aspects are important, Sampradayavithvam and

Brahmanishta. One having both can alone be a teacher. An asampradayavith

jnaani, if it is a possibility, cannot be a teacher (Shankara says

'asampradayavith moorkavath upekshaneeyaha' - A person not belonging to

sampradaya is equivalent to an ignorant man). An ajnaani and a

sampradayavith is still not qualified to be a teacher. So, GURU VAKYA and

SHASTRA VAKYA will not be two different things if it comes from a Shrothriya

and Brahma nishta, and such guru has to be approached in order to gain this

knowledge.

Gurucharana pankaha

Kalyan

[Guest guest]

At 12:23 PM 11/19/99 -0000, you wrote:

> " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda

 

>Nay - Friends, I have to say, how foolish of us to think that those ancient

>rishis were 'More realised than the rishis of today. What qualifications do

>we have to pass such judgements? In fact it would be more rational to say we

>would rather learn about Brahman from a teacher who speaks in our times and

>in a language of our times.

 

Wise words, Jay. I would add that everyone would best learn about Brahman

in their own native language as well. An American or Englishman, for

example, trying to pick through a text with a lot of transliterated

Sanskrit and a " key " at the bottom, is going to have a very difficult time.

A good translation with *only* words in English would be much better.

 

In response to Kalyan's posting, I don't see that anything has done damage,

or can do damage, because the West (and most of the world) is already in

such a state of damage that it can't get any worse. A wrong translation is

better than no translation at all, and Sanskrit is very difficult to

translate to English.

 

So I wish people would quit complaining about incorrect translations and

nit-picking about words, and focus on this statement of Swami Vivekananda:

 

" Do something for your souls! Do wrong if you please, but do *something*! "

(final emphasis is mine). Think hard about that. Most of the world is

vegging out in front of the TV set!

 

HariH OM,

 

Tim

 

-----

" Open mind, open heart, tolerance of all viewpoints "

 

Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net