To read or to hear sastra?

[Guest guest]

 

>> If one intends to understand Advaita, one must first read the Upanishads. Otherwise it will not make sense. Especially if one approaches Advaita after having read the Puranas without any knowledge of Vedanta, then they will understand nothing.(by Shvu)

 

This is non-sense. Srutis are not to be read, they are to be heard from a tattva-vrtti source. The word 'sruti' itself means 'to be heard." Upanisads are talks that one may hear straight from the mouth of his guru, this is the literary translation of the word 'upanisad,' as you may known.

 

No place in all Vedic lore it is stated that one should at first read any sastra by his own account. In Sanskrit 'pada', means to read or to recite. No where this instruction is given.

 

Sabdha-brahma, or transcendental sound is the only cause of real knowledge. If one is trying to attain transcendental knowledge by employing his fallible senses, this is called indriya-paratantra, the kind of knowledge that jivas may attain through their material senses, and it cannot give one the fruit of yoga.

 

Sabdha-brahma is the cause of the real understanding of all sastras.

 

If one reads Upanisads, Vedanta, and so on, and thereafter he reads the commentary of theses srutis made by Sankaracarya, he will be convinced that advaita-vada is the conclusion of all sastras. But if one is prudent and not a blind follower, and also read some other commentaries on srutis made by other acaryas from different philosophical schools, his mind will be in trouble. He will observe that there may be as many commentaries as humans beings.

 

So, an intelligent person will conclude in this way that the Truth cannot be attained only by reading commentaries and sastras. He will be convinced that one should follow the main instruction of all satras in this regard: "First of all try to find a bona fide master in this discipline and you should hear sastras from his mouth."

 

Any comment?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa