BEWARE OF INTERPRETERS

              SAINTS WILL AID

              5.  BEWARE  OF INTERPRETERS 

In course of time, the teachings of Sages come to be translated and also interpreted by succeeding generations.  These traslations and interpretations/  commentaries come to acquire more importance than the original texts themselves. In India, these texts are mostly in Sanskrit  in its ancient form. They are intelligible only to those who take time  and pain to learn them; such persons are few at any time. So, very few go to the original sources. 

The authority for Hindu religious/philosophical teaching is the 'Prastanatraya' : Upanishads, Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita. All our philosophical systems are based on interpretations of these sources. No Acharya has gone to the Veda, which is the very foundation. An impression has been created that the Veda deals with rituals and that the philosophical ideas are to be found only in the Upanishads, which break away from the rituals. It obscures the fact that the Upanishads are very much part of the Veda, an integral part, and no contradiction is involved betwen the two.

Among the modern Masters we are considering, one fact is clearly noticed. None of them depended on the authority of ancient sources to buttress their teaching, and cited them in support of their teaching. Their teachings are based on their exprience. They may refer to the ancient teachings in their conversations with devotees because the latter were familiar with them, to elucidate a point, but not as proof. Ramana Maharshi used to say clearly that he taught  on the basis of his experience, it is the others who found that it tallied with the old teachings.

This creates complications. Most followers/commentators want to enlist the support of the old authorities, and  interpret the Masters in the light of old teachings, and miss what is new. But those who want to prove the uniqueness or superiority of their chosen masters go to the other extreme, and deny the relevance of the old teachings! The truth is in the middle: No genuine Master is merely a copy or echo of an old one, but they do not break the old system either: they come to fulfil, not to destroy. In the spiritual world, the Truth is One, and as old the Creation! The sages merely explain, highlight aspects according to the needs of the times. This we see clearly demonstrated in the life and teachings of the three modern Masters.All the three Masters accept the authority of Vedanta as the final truth, but none of them has merely echoed or repeated the teaching of any old authority.

Sri Ramakrishna, we saw, stressed the way of Bhakti as shown by Narada as the way to liberation in our age. (We find that the same way is more or less reiterated by Rama to Shabari, by Prahlada  to the Asura children, and by the Yogi to king Janaka in the 11th Skandha of Bhagavatam!) He did not deny the truth of Karma or Jnana, but merely said that in the conditions of the modern world Karma could not be preformed properly as prescribed in the scriptures; and so long as we were conscious of the body, we could not, in all honesty, claim that we could pursue Jnana. So long as we could not get rid of the ego, 'let the rascal remain as the servant of God' he said. Sri Ramakrishna decried no previous school, though he pointed out the risks in following some like Tantra which he did not consider suitable or safe for this age.

This is exactly where Ramana comes in. Is there an ego at all? Is it absolutely true? If you investigate the ego, you find it is not there!  (Ulladu Naarpadu,25)Normally, it is the ego (mind) which goes in search of Truth. It is like the thief  acting as the policeman searching for the thief!  (Talks- 43,238,615) Ramana's method has been called the way of Jnana, but Ramana himself called it self-inquiry. It differs from the classical form: the old method focussed on Brahman, investigating the reality of the world, Ramana's method focusses on finding the source of one's own self ie self attention. People were not wanting in his own time who were wondering whether he taught Vedanta or Siddhanta! Sri Muruganar gave the effective reply: Ramana taught "Ramananta"!

 Scholars wrote commentaries on his works , based on their own beliefs. Once Lakshmana Sarma complained to Bhagavan that some Sanskrit translation did not reflect the original accurately. Bhagavan did not criticise it, but merely said: 'then, why don't you write your own?'  He did, submitted it to Ramana for correction, and Bhagavan did make many changes! But such problems arise only for those who cannot follow the original.  ( Among the many who came to Bhagavan, only Muruganar and Lakshmana Sarma came without any previous knowledge of Vedanta, though they were otherwise learned! They expressed to Bhagavan dfficulty in following the ideas of the Forty Verses. Bhagavan personally taught and explained it to them; they were thus privileged.) 

It is not that Sri Ramakrishna did not talk about or approve of Jnana; he explained it beautifully, but also its difficulty..

"Yes, one may reach Him by following the path of discrimination too; that is calld jnanayoga. But it is an extremely difficult path. i have told you already of the seven planes of consciousness.On reaching the seventh plane the mind goes into samadhi. If a man acquires the firm knowledge that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory, then his mind merges in samadhi. But in the Kaliyuga the life of a man depends entirely on food. How can he have the consciousness that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory?"

"What is jnanayoga? The jnani seeks to realise Brahman. he discriminates, saying ,''Not this,not this'. He discriminates , saying,'Brahman is real and the universe illusory'. He discriminates between the Real and the unreal. As he comes to the end of discrimination, he goes into samadhi and attains the Knowledge of Brahman."

"What is the meaning of jnanayoga? It is the path  by which a man can realise the true nature of his own Self; it is the awareness that Brahman alone is his true nature."

 Or that Sri Ramana did not talk of Bhakti. He always said,'inquire or surrender'; surrender is the last stage of Bhakti- atma nivedanam. In the entire bhakti literature, it is difficult to find more moving Bhakti hymns than the Five Hymns to Arunachala. In over fifty years, Sri Ramana never even once criticised other schools, or taught self-enquiry to any one on his own! Once, Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri said that Bhagavan prescribed self-enquiry, which was a tall order, for every one, regardless of their preparation or qualifications. Bhagavan merely said he but taught what he " knew or had experinced". He used to explain that ultimately one came to self-enquiry consciously or unconsciously. For instance, Yoga means union; it assumes there is separation! For whom is the separation? It is for me. Then, Who am I?This question has to be faced, and answered in the end by every one on any path! These are explained clearly in the 'Forty Verses'. Sadhu Om has also explained them, based on Bhagavan's teaching alone.

Sri Aurobindo's Yoga is  a predominantly psychological method, what in the olden days used to be called RajaYoga, but broader than that. But it incorporates karma and devotion as well- that is why it is Integral Yoga! Sri Aurobindo's Yoga invokes absolute Divine help for its performance, and is not based on human effort alone.

"It is the lesson of life that always in this world everything fails a man- only the Divine does not fail him, if he turns entirely to the Divine."

"To find the Divine is indeed the first reason for seeking the spiritual Truth and the spiritual life; it is the one thing indispensable and all the rest is nothing without it."

"Yoga is directed towards God, not towards man."

"This yoga demands a total dedication of life to the aspiration for the discovery and embodiment of the Divine Truth and to nothing else whatever." 

 

 He has very clearly enunciated both the differences from and common aspects with the old systems.

"I have never said that my yoga was something brand new in all its elements....it takes up the essence and many processes of the old yogas- its newness is in its aim,standpoint and the totality of its method."

"Why should there be anything new? The object of spiritual seeking is to find out what is eternally true, not what is new in Time."

"I have said that this yoga is "new" because it aims at the integrality of the Divine in this world  and not only byond it and at a supramental realisation. But hoe does that justify a suprior contempt for the spiritual realisation which is as much the aim of this yoga as of any other?"

Sri Aurobindo said his yoga was new as compared with the old because:

• it aims not at a departure out of world and life into heaven or Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence
• the object sought after is not an individual achievement of divine realisation  for the sake of the individual, but something to be gained for the earth-consciousness here
• the method is as total and integral as the aim- the total and integral change of  the consciousness and nature

 

As Sri Aurobindo has himself explained in his statment, his teaching starts from that of the ancient stages, but does not stagnate there. And even while accepting the old teachings, he has gone to the very source- Veda. But in his view, the Vedic rishis aimed at individual perfection,but did not try to make it part of earth-consciousness. The subsequent Rishis tried to state  the Vedic insights in intellectual forms; the later commentators tried to make it more logically rigorous. In this process, some aspects of the original insights were obscured, and resulted in mayavada.. This is what Sri Aurobindo rectified. His method:

• draws attention to the basic insights of the Veda, but aims to make that consciousness part of the earthly life
• regards the world as real, and not as illusion or unreal
• does not advocate running away from the world or renouncing it
• integrates all the human faculties and their methods- will: karma; emotion: devotion, and mind control: Yoga, as such.

The real difference between Sri Aurobindo and all the previous authorities lies in his conception of the nature of the ultimate goal, and what it involves in living.

So far, Sri Aurobindo has largely escaped the labours of 'interpreters'. Or, the interpreters have all been from the 'inside'. However, Sri Aurobindo is one Sage whose main means of communicaton was writing, and he wrote so clearly in English that one who knows English reasonably well  does not need any interpreters: one could always go to him direct. Those who do not know English are surely at a disadvantage. His writings are almost impossible to translate in many languages, and any translation would lose the mantric power of his  original writings. This, those who have read the original writings and translations do clearly experience. 

There is no difficulty at all in studying the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna- they are so clerly stated in the 'Gospel'. Those whose language is Tamil can follow the original writings of Sri Ramana, with a little application; for others competent translations are available. Sri Aurobindo's writings are in English; it appears tough and his style is not something Indians are used to- but it can certainly be read in the original, again with a little application. In no case we need interpreters.

Note: I always quote from the Masters themselves, from authoritative publications from the authentic sources- Sri Ramakrishna Math, Sri Ramanasramam, and Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Sri Aurobindo's writings are extensive and even on a single point, he has expressed himself from many angles. These are brought together in neat compilations. The quotations today are all taken from the publicaton 'The Integral Yoga', Second Impression,1996. Very useful compilations are also made by Dr.A.S.Dalal.