Thanks for your explanation about the role of Swami Vivekananda's teachingsin your personal understanding of spirituality. The greatest mistake we makeis not to be able to distinguish the teaching from the teacher. Suppose weread a Vedic text like 'Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' -- that verse isconsidered to be revealed scripture - revealed by a Rishi. Who within us cansay what that rishi was trying to put across? We need to be a Rishi toreally say we understand what is meant by this verse. What good is agrammarian in the matter of Brahman ?Is it not a great pity that we thinkthe meaning as exemplified by a Rishi of Vivekananda's stature has toscrutinised against the teachings of ancient seers?

Nay - Friends, I have to say, how foolish of us to think that those ancientrishis were 'More realised than the rishis of today. What qualifications dowe have to pass such judgements? In fact it would be more rational to say wewould rather learn about Brahman from a teacher who speaks in our times andin a language of our times.

jayreply to this posting from Kalyan>>

Subject: Vivekananda

Sorry if my comments had hurt the sentiments of some people. I was notdiscussing Swami Vivekananda in my mail, but only wanted to point out how awrong interpretation can cause damage. The reason I mentioned SwamiVivekananda's name was because he has forcefully used these translations atmany places including the famous Chicago address (if I remember correctly).So, the earliest source of this translation we find is his. Since we arediscussing vedanta shastra, I feel, we should be objective in our presentingour views. Moreover, I didn't mean that Swami Vivekananda has done damageto the society. (Personally, I owe a lot to Swami Vivekananda and am onewho 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 onlysaid that the wrong translation of 'ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti' has donedamage. It need not have been Swami vivekananda's translation at all. Inany case, Swami Vivekananda's greatness is what it is, inspite of myrecognition or non-recognition of it. Beyond any doubt, the whole humanityand 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 guruwith respect to shastra. (Just wanted to point out that I am not discussingany particular person but a general subject matter.)

It is a catch-22 situation, because both GURU and SHASTRA are consideredsame 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 invedantha through sampradaya and is also one having nishta in Brahmna vastu'.One has to notice that BOTH aspects are important, Sampradayavithvam andBrahmanishta. One having both can alone be a teacher. An asampradayavithjnaani, if it is a possibility, cannot be a teacher (Shankara says'asampradayavith moorkavath upekshaneeyaha' - A person not belonging tosampradaya is equivalent to an ignorant man). An ajnaani and asampradayavith is still not qualified to be a teacher. So, GURU VAKYA andSHASTRA VAKYA will not be two different things if it comes from a Shrothriyaand Brahma nishta, and such guru has to be approached in order to gain this

knowledge.Gurucharana pankahaKalyanShow all 11 messages in this topic

https://www.google.com/search?q=upekshaneeyaha&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=upekshaneeyaha&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3...11420.11420.0.11670.1.1.0.0.0.0.62.62.1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..1.0.0.mVs9rcqrSDU