Vedha adhyayanam

[agopal]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Just wanted to hear about other people's opinion. Is Veda really need to be saved by oral adhyayanam from guru to disciple even in modern society? Isn't saving the Vedic sounds through electronic media sufficient? It made sense in ancient society without any means of recording the Vedic sounds to pass it on orally through generations? Agreed - the Vedic uccharans needs to be saved . But with the vast media availability all we need to save is the electronic recordings and a player to play it back. If we keep that safe and preserve it future generations, wouldn't it suffice?

 

[renuka]

I dont know much about Vedas etc but to a certain extent I guess ancients did move along with the times.

I have no idea what was the 1st script used to write the Vedas when documentation and writing started.

Some alphabets too have undergone change and not used in some Vedas but still retained in Rig Veda.

For example :

The letter ळ is present in the Rigveda ,Shuklayajurveda and the Jaiminiyasakha of the Samaveda.

In the Krishnayajurveda, Kauthumaranayaniyasakha of Samaveda the letter ळ is replaced by the letter ड

So it goes to show that time and place did have some effect and that means nothing was not moving with times.

So going by that logic I do not see any harm in anything being recorded and saved electronically..it might actually minimize error.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Just wanted to hear about other people's opinion. Is Veda really need to be saved by oral adhyayanam from guru to disciple even in modern society? Isn't saving the Vedic sounds through electronic media sufficient? It made sense in ancient society without any means of recording the Vedic sounds to pass it on orally through generations? Agreed - the Vedic uccharans needs to be saved . But with the vast media availability all we need to save is the electronic recordings and a player to play it back. If we keep that safe and preserve it future generations, wouldn't it suffice?

Do we have any Tamil translation on the four Vedas? If not, why?

 

[vgane]

Do we have any Tamil translation on the four Vedas? If not, why?

Dear Chandru,

The answers are available if you google..Here goes one link for the Tamil translation of the Vedas by Pandit MR Jambunathan

Pandit M.R. Jambunathan - VedicGranth.Org


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mintamil/lhosDvt0BXY

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Chandru,

The answers are available if you google..Here goes one link for the Tamil translation of the Vedas by Pandit MR Jambunathan

Pandit M.R. Jambunathan - VedicGranth.Org


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mintamil/lhosDvt0BXY

Thanks.

 

[vsubbu48]

One can preserve vedic chants in an electronic or any other media. But how to produce anyone to chant the vedas if adyayanam does not take place?

 

[ashwin_ash]

One can preserve vedic chants in an electronic or any other media. But how to produce anyone to chant the vedas if adyayanam does not take place?

This is a bestseller, 8 hours of all 4 Vedas with wonderful explanations - Amazon.in: Buy Vedas (Sama|Yajur|Rig|Atharva) DVD, Blu-ray Online at Best Prices in India | Movies & TV Shows

 

[biswa]

This oral tradition was just to predominance of gurus and to establish the guru-shishya tradition. Technology can make individual gurus obsolete, and it does not even require high-tech. Even a written book suffices. Understanding the inner meaning and philosophy does not require knowing the pronunciation. The sounds of pronunciation always change with time.

 

[tks]

This oral tradition was just to predominance of gurus and to establish the guru-shishya tradition. Technology can make individual gurus obsolete, and it does not even require high-tech. Even a written book suffices. Understanding the inner meaning and philosophy does not require knowing the pronunciation. The sounds of pronunciation always change with time.

Sri Biswa

To learn intonation and learning to memorize books and DVD etc can suffice. The teaching method employed at Veda Patashala achieves orders of magnitude memorization by the teaching technique (and environment) with good teachers can make a big difference.


Inner meaning is a different matter in my view. Most people can pick up certain terms easily and even converse in them. Without a qualified teacher there is no way to understand these teachings that can make a difference (assuming there is even clarity as to what the goals are).

There had been many threads where this point has been discussed and I have said my part - so I will not repeat the logic behind why right teachers are rare and are needed.

But just for completeness let us use one example.

There are Mahavakyas like say 'Sarvam Kalvidam Brahma' - meaning all this here (the universe/multiverse) is Brahman .

But the world/universe is all about multiplicity, variegated, and existence of opposites with countless 'things' .
Brahman is supposed to be by definition not objectified or understood by mind or found anywhere , and immutable etc,

How can the so called Mahavakya be correct - at the face of it it is ludicrous. If anyone digs deep with books they could swallow the statement and repeat that around, declare this as nonsense and move on or develop a contempt to such things because they want to understand but cannot. The books written are by people with limited knowledge at best. If someone were to read Sri Sankara's commentary which are already cryptic and in sophisticated Sanskrit grammar the books that are available even by eminent scholars can at best make an attempt but can never communicate in satisfactory manner.

 

[tks]

Responding to the Opening Post:

It all depends on what is meant by 'saving and preserving'. If the saving and preservation is like saving items in a museum it is possible to save in an electronic media.

If the word preservation means understanding and following the teaching then there are issues with electronic media.

The so called oral tradition included many practices (like Yoga, Meditation, Pranayama and other rituals, ) and teaching methods that allowed human mind to even memorize tens of thousands of verses using various meters etc. Even in other cultures there are people that prided in memorizing Iliad and other works of Homer in its entirety.

The human mind has lost that capacity with the advent of all these tools and new teaching techniques.

Those living in the west can appreciate this example. In early 80s I drove through many places in Europe alone via many countries without knowing the language. I had a good sense of reading a map and always reached the destination with reasonable time. I do not think it is age but with advent of map devices in a vehicle many of us have become dumbed down and cannot even function without such a device.

The oral tradition was much more than preservation of intonation but it was all about a way of life.

Anyway all these are getting lost these days anyway so now the question is about preservation of this in an electronic media.

Back in early 80s I had personal and professional email at work mixed up and I made special effort to get personal email copied into a tape media since I did not want to print so many pieces of paper. Some ten years later I found there was no device that can read my tape

Similarly I had some events recorded by friends using their camcorder who dutifully made a copy and gave to me (in the 90s). I have few of those that are orphans because those formats are not supported by any devicenow. In the end the old printed film has stood through the test of time.

One can say DVD format may survive but I doubt it in the next 25 years

In the past 30 years many formats have come and gone and if one is not vigilant then the information becomes extinct and the gadget is suitable only for a museums.

So my suggestion is that the oral tradition survives this electronic gadget onslaught. After all it had survived thousand years or more and it can if people continue to respect and follow the tradition

 

[Vaagmi]

Sri Biswa
But just for completeness let us use one example.

There are Mahavakyas like say 'Sarvam Kalvidam Brahma' - meaning all this here (the universe/multiverse) is Brahman .

But the world/universe is all about multiplicity, variegated, and existence of opposites with countless 'things' .
Brahman is supposed to be by definition not objectified or understood by mind or found anywhere , and immutable etc,

How can the so called Mahavakya be correct - at the face of it it is ludicrous. If anyone digs deep with books they could swallow the statement and repeat that around, declare this as nonsense and move on or develop a contempt to such things because they want to understand but cannot. The books written are by people with limited knowledge at best. If someone were to read Sri Sankara's commentary which are already cryptic and in sophisticated Sanskrit grammar the books that are available even by eminent scholars can at best make an attempt but can never communicate in satisfactory manner.

This presumes a few things like:

1. The mahavakhya 'sarvam kalvidham brahma' is an enigma which is not possible to understand. Even those who think that they have understood have just 'swallowed' what is given in books which is all wrong.

2. The books are written by people with limited knowledge at best. Hence their understanding itself is doubtful and hence their publishing their understanding is bound to lead to only misunderstanding.

3. Sankara's works are so cryptic that even the eminent scholars can never communicate in a satisfactory manner what he has recorded in them.

Now my views on this:

1. The given mahavakhya can be understood by each student in search of knowledge, according to his level of maturity and knowledge. If what you say has to be accepted we will have to discount all intellectual pursuit and end up with a சும்மா இருப்பதே சுகம் position. In spite of minds being different and thoughts and and their processes and pathways being different, we try to sort, compare,validate and determine facts using common denominators. So I am unable to agree with your words about 'swallowed wisdom' from books of scholars. There is no other medium other than books(in whatever form including digital form) to pass on knowledge through time.

2 and 3. I read Sankara and other Acharyas. I also read the numerous presentations on their views by later day scholars. I also read the originals on which Sankara has written. Now whatever be the language, it has its own limitations in conveying what the scholar (Sankara or others) has understood of the subject under discussion. This limitation of thought/language interface is an ever present one and there is no way of getting around it. So all understanding of scriptures is subject to this latent, inherent difficulty. Generally in discussion of philosophy this inherent difficulty is accepted as a given condition and people proceed with trying to understand what one has to offer by setting the coordinates and boundaries first. I believe Sankara remained cryptic where being cryptic was called for by the communication requirements. By being very cryptic he has eloquently communicated what he wanted. Scholars are all like that.

All this is said without picking on the subject from among the subject, predicate and object of the post. LOL.

 

[tks]

This presumes a few things like:

1. The mahavakhya 'sarvam kalvidham brahma' is an enigma which is not possible to understand. Even those who think that they have understood have just 'swallowed' what is given in books which is all wrong.

2. The books are written by people with limited knowledge at best. Hence their understanding itself is doubtful and hence their publishing their understanding is bound to lead to only misunderstanding.

3. Sankara's works are so cryptic that even the eminent scholars can never communicate in a satisfactory manner what he has recorded in them.

Now my views on this:

1. The given mahavakhya can be understood by each student in search of knowledge, according to his level of maturity and knowledge. If what you say has to be accepted we will have to discount all intellectual pursuit and end up with a சும்மா இருப்பதே சுகம் position. In spite of minds being different and thoughts and and their processes and pathways being different, we try to sort, compare,validate and determine facts using common denominators. So I am unable to agree with your words about 'swallowed wisdom' from books of scholars. There is no other medium other than books(in whatever form including digital form) to pass on knowledge through time.

2 and 3. I read Sankara and other Acharyas. I also read the numerous presentations on their views by later day scholars. I also read the originals on which Sankara has written. Now whatever be the language, it has its own limitations in conveying what the scholar (Sankara or others) has understood of the subject under discussion. This limitation of thought/language interface is an ever present one and there is no way of getting around it. So all understanding of scriptures is subject to this latent, inherent difficulty. Generally in discussion of philosophy this inherent difficulty is accepted as a given condition and people proceed with trying to understand what one has to offer by setting the coordinates and boundaries first. I believe Sankara remained cryptic where being cryptic was called for by the communication requirements. By being very cryptic he has eloquently communicated what he wanted. Scholars are all like that.

All this is said without picking on the subject from among the subject, predicate and object of the post. LOL.

Sri Vaagmi

Thanks for your response - makes the forum thread more interesting


First there are few corrections to what you took away as to what I am said to be 'presuming'. Let me make one more attempt.

1. I did not say it is enigma that is not possible to understand.. It is not even an enigma (in my other posts I have stated that the impediments to learning is what we think we already know due to our 'common sense' - the need to unlearn is often not realized and is harder). One can see parallels in learning the modern science where difficulty arises due to classical understanding of reality.

The only thing I was saying is that it is not possible to understand and 'get it' using books *only*. Books may be an aid but not a substitute.
For casual readers for having dinner conversations books of any kinds is adequate.

My point is to basically express the intent behind the recitation of this:

"sadasiva samarambham sankaracarya madhyamam asmad acarya paryantam vande guru paramparam"

Or
"narayana samarambham vyasa sankara madhyamam asmad acarya paryantam vande guru paramparaam

2. Most books that one finds in the market place are either incorrect, or incomplete or both in my experience. Incompleteness may not be due to lack of knowledge - it is difficult to personalize the teaching according to the understanding of a student. This is true only for this topic are and not to sciences or any other subjects. Let me explain.

Science deals with matter which are observable and mutable and hence discernible by mind (directly, by inference or by instrumentation etc).
Study of mind is also due to movement of mind in all our states of existence.
In causal world of space-time it is possible to study these items within the context of space-time only.
When we talk about an entity (by definition) which is the cause of space-time, mind and matter nothing in the world can be used to describe it.
The learning has to happen in the mind of an individual based on many factors. There are intense preparations that make this possible. The teaching tradition implied in the Guru Parampara is much more than words in a book.

Those who read books and write more can only provide incorrect information.

Books have value but they have limited value

3. I was being cryptic since I did not want to get into all the discussions from past threads. The teachings including commentaries and even Tikkas written have embedded context which includes the whole. The part has the whole just like a seed has the whole tree in subtle form. Many words in Sanskrit employed itself has the entire meaning of the underlying teaching. A person reading this cannot get the context. They have to have known all the work to fully understand certain verses. But they cannot fully understand everything even if they do 100 passes because there is no way to bring new levels of understanding from existing state. This again only applies to this kind of topic and not to Sciences.

The catch 22 situation is resolved by having this taught by someone who already knows all the teaching and teach each section with right context. The question is how did that person get the whole teaching - not by reading but from his or her Guru. This lineage and teaching method implied is a meaning and importance of Guru parampara.

Now I hope I have clarified a bit more about what I said. You can evaluate if your responses are addressed in the process

Regards

 

[Vaagmi]

Sri Vaagmi

Thanks for your response - makes the forum thread more interesting


First there are few corrections to what you took away as to what I am said to be 'presuming'. Let me make one more attempt.

1. I did not say it is enigma that is not possible to understand.. It is not even an enigma (in my other posts I have stated that the impediments to learning is what we think we already know due to our 'common sense' - the need to unlearn is often not realized and is harder). One can see parallels in learning the modern science where difficulty arises due to classical understanding of reality.

The only thing I was saying is that it is not possible to understand and 'get it' using books *only*. Books may be an aid but not a substitute.
For casual readers for having dinner conversations books of any kinds is adequate.

My point is to basically express the intent behind the recitation of this:

"sadasiva samarambham sankaracarya madhyamam asmad acarya paryantam vande guru paramparam"

Or
"narayana samarambham vyasa sankara madhyamam asmad acarya paryantam vande guru paramparaam

2. Most books that one finds in the market place are either incorrect, or incomplete or both in my experience. Incompleteness may not be due to lack of knowledge - it is difficult to personalize the teaching according to the understanding of a student. This is true only for this topic are and not to sciences or any other subjects. Let me explain.

Science deals with matter which are observable and mutable and hence discernible by mind (directly, by inference or by instrumentation etc).
Study of mind is also due to movement of mind in all our states of existence.
In causal world of space-time it is possible to study these items within the context of space-time only.
When we talk about an entity (by definition) which is the cause of space-time, mind and matter nothing in the world can be used to describe it.
The learning has to happen in the mind of an individual based on many factors. There are intense preparations that make this possible. The teaching tradition implied in the Guru Parampara is much more than words in a book.

Those who read books and write more can only provide incorrect information.

Books have value but they have limited value

3. I was being cryptic since I did not want to get into all the discussions from past threads. The teachings including commentaries and even Tikkas written have embedded context which includes the whole. The part has the whole just like a seed has the whole tree in subtle form. Many words in Sanskrit employed itself has the entire meaning of the underlying teaching. A person reading this cannot get the context. They have to have known all the work to fully understand certain verses. But they cannot fully understand everything even if they do 100 passes because there is no way to bring new levels of understanding from existing state. This again only applies to this kind of topic and not to Sciences.

The catch 22 situation is resolved by having this taught by someone who already knows all the teaching and teach each section with right context. The question is how did that person get the whole teaching - not by reading but from his or her Guru. This lineage and teaching method implied is a meaning and importance of Guru parampara.

Now I hope I have clarified a bit more about what I said. You can evaluate if your responses are addressed in the process

Regards

Dear tks,

That was a very detailed reply. Thanks. My thoughts:

1. I was only concerned that we should not turn judgmental about books, their authors and their utility/value while stressing the advantages of a Guru-Sishya interface for transfer of knowledge. The two are mutually supportive of each other-is my view. This is more so in the modern context. Science or metaphysics-this applies with equal validity. Speaking about examples I am tempted to give one here. This happened in my college days. In those days we were introduced to calculus only in the PUC class in college (my daughter started learning that branch as part of the syllabus in her 10th class !!). For a young mind which was so far used to only a certain logical progression of ideas, it was a paradigm shift. My professor was a learned man. He tried his best to explain the idea of calculus to the class as best as he could. I found it difficult to grasp the basic logic in the differentiation and integration that we were taught to do. The methods were not difficult nor the steps tedious. But at the end of it all what we were doing really was a big question mark to me and many of my friends. This in spite of repeated questioning to the professor and his attempt to explain things to us sincerely. I went to the college library and spent two hours every day for three days reading every book that was available there on calculus. At last I got what I wanted from a book written by an American author. He had explained differentiation, integration and Diff. equations all with a single example of a tree which was growing. That was like a bulb being switched on in a dark room as far as I was concerned. I explained what I gathered to my friends who were all happy that they got it. From then on when an equation was being written on the board we could follow what it was really representing and we enjoyed those moments and shared them too. What a professor could not do a book did.

2. No doubt there are good books and bad books. But we do not read a bad book because we can quickly figure out that it is bad. I agree with your point with a small difference. All unintelligible entities remain only "unintelligible". Like a frog in the well which asked its guest from the outside world "how big is your world? Is it this big (jumping from one end of the well to the other end)?" I too try to understand God with all the limitations of the mind, language and space-time etc., But I do make an effort and that is important for me. I fully understand the "yatha vaco nivartante, aprapya manasa saha" fully. It is in a way my own cry of agony. But that is not an argument for giving up trying. The frog really tried and when told the world was bigger, it got a measure of what was said though not the full measure of it. I am happy that I am like that frog. Apart from my Acharya, books too help me jump farther and farther in my own well for asking a question. LOL.

3. Guru parampara is a great system- no doubt. Particularly for learning abstract and difficult ideas there is a great advantage in going to an Acharyan. When I helped my daughter with her calculus in her 10th class book explaining to her with the help of what I had learnt years back from that American Author's book, she was extremely happy and was thankful to me. She gave me a bear-hug as a mark of her happiness and thankfulness. She was happy with her Acharyan (thats me) and I was thankfull to the book. LOL.

Thanks.

 

[mkrishna100]

What a professor could not do a book did.

A good book is much better than a bad teacher - BKS Iyengar , Yoga Guru

 

[tks]

Dear tks,

That was a very detailed reply. Thanks. My thoughts:

1. I was only concerned that we should not turn judgmental about books, their authors and their utility/value while stressing the advantages of a Guru-Sishya interface for transfer of knowledge. The two are mutually supportive of each other-is my view. This is more so in the modern context. Science or metaphysics-this applies with equal validity. Speaking about examples I am tempted to give one here. This happened in my college days. In those days we were introduced to calculus only in the PUC class in college (my daughter started learning that branch as part of the syllabus in her 10th class !!). For a young mind which was so far used to only a certain logical progression of ideas, it was a paradigm shift. My professor was a learned man. He tried his best to explain the idea of calculus to the class as best as he could. I found it difficult to grasp the basic logic in the differentiation and integration that we were taught to do. The methods were not difficult nor the steps tedious. But at the end of it all what we were doing really was a big question mark to me and many of my friends. This in spite of repeated questioning to the professor and his attempt to explain things to us sincerely. I went to the college library and spent two hours every day for three days reading every book that was available there on calculus. At last I got what I wanted from a book written by an American author. He had explained differentiation, integration and Diff. equations all with a single example of a tree which was growing. That was like a bulb being switched on in a dark room as far as I was concerned. I explained what I gathered to my friends who were all happy that they got it. From then on when an equation was being written on the board we could follow what it was really representing and we enjoyed those moments and shared them too. What a professor could not do a book did.

2. No doubt there are good books and bad books. But we do not read a bad book because we can quickly figure out that it is bad. I agree with your point with a small difference. All unintelligible entities remain only "unintelligible". Like a frog in the well which asked its guest from the outside world "how big is your world? Is it this big (jumping from one end of the well to the other end)?" I too try to understand God with all the limitations of the mind, language and space-time etc., But I do make an effort and that is important for me. I fully understand the "yatha vaco nivartante, aprapya manasa saha" fully. It is in a way my own cry of agony. But that is not an argument for giving up trying. The frog really tried and when told the world was bigger, it got a measure of what was said though not the full measure of it. I am happy that I am like that frog. Apart from my Acharya, books too help me jump farther and farther in my own well for asking a question. LOL.

3. Guru parampara is a great system- no doubt. Particularly for learning abstract and difficult ideas there is a great advantage in going to an Acharyan. When I helped my daughter with her calculus in her 10th class book explaining to her with the help of what I had learnt years back from that American Author's book, she was extremely happy and was thankful to me. She gave me a bear-hug as a mark of her happiness and thankfulness. She was happy with her Acharyan (thats me) and I was thankfull to the book. LOL.

Thanks.

1. My point about not relying on books as the primary source was applicable only to this topic area. It is not Philosophy or metaphysics or science or about science. That is a different topic of discussion as to what it is. Let me say for lack of a better term use this term Brahmavidya and it is not realizable by books as a source.

Having said this let me also say that in today's world, in all my other activities I have relied mainly on books for my learning, including on topics like 'how to raise children'.

I even bought a book and a video on on how to clean a house and purchased a bunch of tools and chemicals . When I came home my wife was not pleased to say the least since she was doing lion's share of cleaning by herself and the last thing she needed was my advice on how to clean the house and buying a book for her (this was many years ago when she chose to stay home to raise young children ) - We still laugh about this..

In technical areas I discovered the existence of Shaum series of solved problems which taught me more than anything else. Books tend to provide experience and wisdom of the authors and a good book often can do better than an average teacher. I can resonate with how you found the calculus book helpful and how it had a generational impact

In today's busy world many rely on 'digested presentation' of the teachings of vedanta which often tend to be a distortion from the original teaching because the digested product is contaminated with the personal issues & limitation of the author(s).

2. My take is this - It is possible in this world , in this life , for any frog to indeed jump out of the well and see the world but the frog has to do the right thing beyond trying what it think it knows. Trying will never accomplish because the problem is often stated and approached incorrectly. The Upanishadic verse you quoted is this


yato vAco nivartante aprApya manasA saha
Anandam brahmaNo vidvAn na bibheti kadAcana

The second line is this:
But he who realizes the joy of brahman is free from fear




So what cannot be understood by mind can be indeed 'realized' This cannot be communicated (in terms of how to etc) by any book in my view. The trying can stop at that point and all this is possible in this life !

3. My kids used to get impressed when I used to solve their 'tough' calculus problem for them when they were in high school . After a few years in college they have surpassed me in many new areas and like to call me out. Once my son asked help with a tough problem in fluid mechanics many years ago and I have not been working in such things and my exposure to this was only during my physics 'career as a student'. So I tried and tried and did not succeed .. Then I searched online (Google was just getting established then) and found a solution. I told him how to solve the problem and was expecting a thank you etc. He said instead "I have already found that online link but thanks for trying" .. Forget a bear hug .. did not even get a thanks ..Instead he said that all I should have done is stated is that I found this online and not even provide the appearance of passing this off as my solution

​

 

[tbs]

hi

i studied veda adhyayanam through gurukula system in my childhood for six years in the veda patashala...still im not completed my veda adhyayanam...

here some posts are talking abt veda ahyayanam without studying in veda patashala....theory is from real practical knowledge....

even im not able answer the some of the queries made by OP....so im quiet here....

 

[Vaagmi]

tks,

Journeying and exploring into this a little more is not a bad idea. Let me try.

1. Brahmavidya and it is not realizable by books as a source.

2. In today's busy world many rely on 'digested presentation' of the teachings of vedanta which often tend to be a distortion from the original teaching because the digested product is contaminated with the personal issues & limitation of the author(s).

3. My take is this - It is possible in this world , in this life , for any frog to indeed jump out of the well and see the world but the frog has to do the right thing beyond trying what it think it knows. Trying will never accomplish because the problem is often stated and approached incorrectly.

My thoughts:

1. If there is no way of recording, there is no way of comparing and validating. What I have realized may be quite different from what you or Mr.X has realized. And who has realized the right thing/experience and who has not realized but claims to have realized or who has realized the wrong experience among the three of us? How do we find it? Or is it that this experience is not to be compared and validated at all? If some Y comes and says that all you guys have realized is nothing but a mirage how do we counter it if what I speak about has nothing to do with what you have realized and what Mr. X has realized? Like in medicine is there any indications or contraindications or symptoms in the case of realized souls? If they are there, are they common and verifiable across all the human beings? All this translates to a simple question: if brahmavidya can be taught through teacher-student interface, why it can not be reduced to writing?

2. Every human being has a history and so whatever it learns is influenced by this personal history of accumulated knowledge, experiences and values. So digested material comes out attenuated by the underlying historic values, knowledge and experiences. This is true for every human being. Not special to some of them alone. It is for the receiver of the signals to filter it and take. Here too each one has a unique filter which again depends on a personal history. So it is like the space in which there are any number of radio stations propagating their radio waves. Each has a unique wavelength and in a particular bandwidth and if your tuner can receive that wave length you get the signal otherwise you are blind to it. Whether it is Radio Mirchi in FM or VOA in Medium wave a ''Jagatoddharana'' will be the same. When I go to listen to a lecture on Viveka Choodamani or Vedartha Samgraha I apply a different filter. When I attend the frenzied bhajans of Haridasvital which includes varkari sampradhaya apangs I apply a different filter. But I find all these help me or the frog in me jump farther and farther inside my well. I do not make judgments. If I do that I will have no patience for the repeated chanting of ''Ramkrishna Hari'' or ''vittala vittala'' of Haridas swami nor will I be able to fight the fatigue that sets in with too much of hairsplitting involved with the maya, atman and universal consciousness and Jivan mukti of Viveka Choodamani.

3. Now the frog protests and says no one really knows how much IT knows. And it adds politely that it has a completely different opinion about all that these people claim to know. They know neither the frog nor the well nor the world. LOL.

 

[tks]

tks,

Journeying and exploring into this a little more is not a bad idea. Let me try.

1. Brahmavidya and it is not realizable by books as a source.

2. In today's busy world many rely on 'digested presentation' of the teachings of vedanta which often tend to be a distortion from the original teaching because the digested product is contaminated with the personal issues & limitation of the author(s).

3. My take is this - It is possible in this world , in this life , for any frog to indeed jump out of the well and see the world but the frog has to do the right thing beyond trying what it think it knows. Trying will never accomplish because the problem is often stated and approached incorrectly.

My thoughts:

1. If there is no way of recording, there is no way of comparing and validating. What I have realized may be quite different from what you or Mr.X has realized. And who has realized the right thing/experience and who has not realized but claims to have realized or who has realized the wrong experience among the three of us? How do we find it? Or is it that this experience is not to be compared and validated at all? If some Y comes and says that all you guys have realized is nothing but a mirage how do we counter it if what I speak about has nothing to do with what you have realized and what Mr. X has realized? Like in medicine is there any indications or contraindications or symptoms in the case of realized souls? If they are there, are they common and verifiable across all the human beings? All this translates to a simple question: if brahmavidya can be taught through teacher-student interface, why it can not be reduced to writing?

2. Every human being has a history and so whatever it learns is influenced by this personal history of accumulated knowledge, experiences and values. So digested material comes out attenuated by the underlying historic values, knowledge and experiences. This is true for every human being. Not special to some of them alone. It is for the receiver of the signals to filter it and take. Here too each one has a unique filter which again depends on a personal history. So it is like the space in which there are any number of radio stations propagating their radio waves. Each has a unique wavelength and in a particular bandwidth and if your tuner can receive that wave length you get the signal otherwise you are blind to it. Whether it is Radio Mirchi in FM or VOA in Medium wave a ''Jagatoddharana'' will be the same. When I go to listen to a lecture on Viveka Choodamani or Vedartha Samgraha I apply a different filter. When I attend the frenzied bhajans of Haridasvital which includes varkari sampradhaya apangs I apply a different filter. But I find all these help me or the frog in me jump farther and farther inside my well. I do not make judgments. If I do that I will have no patience for the repeated chanting of ''Ramkrishna Hari'' or ''vittala vittala'' of Haridas swami nor will I be able to fight the fatigue that sets in with too much of hairsplitting involved with the maya, atman and universal consciousness and Jivan mukti of Viveka Choodamani.

3. Now the frog protests and says no one really knows how much IT knows. And it adds politely that it has a completely different opinion about all that these people claim to know. They know neither the frog nor the well nor the world. LOL.

1 For generations this knowledge has propagated down to our era without books playing a primary role.
In fact I agree with the point you made - this knowledge is NOT about any subjective experience of anyone. In fact anyone who starts out thinking it is some kind of bliss to be achieved has not understood the basics. A subjective experience is not a knowledge that can be taught.
It is also not something to be attained 'after death' - Most religions equate going to heaven as the goal but this knowledge is about removing ignorance here & now.

Usually I preface if something is my view or opinion stating that unless in myunderstanding something is a categoric knowledge established objectively (It will be silly to say in my view gravity acts on me)


This knowledge has been reduced to writing to some extent by Sri Sankara. The whole in part aspects make this very hard to do much more. There are lots of works which are legitimate in my view but they are not substitutes, only aids.


Also a key part of learning is 'unlearning' which is dependent on individuals levels of maturity and is hard to codify.

2. Applying filter and taking what makes sense means you have already 'gotten it ' so to speak and you do not need anything else. Knowing when to apply a filter implies apriori knowledge.

3. I did not make this point well ,, I dont known anyone that came and claimed that they have become enlightened .. In fact if someone says that then they dont (kenaupanishad explains this beautifully). My point is that this is not an unachievable activity unless it is incorrectly portrayed as a state to be achieved after death. Trying can stop but first the problem has to be stated corrrectly.

PS: Pardon the typos .. Typed this in my ipad and have no time to edit. Traveling.. My response if any will be delayed

 

[Vaagmi]

1 For generations this knowledge has propagated down to our era without books playing a primary role.
In fact I agree with the point you made - this knowledge is NOT about any subjective experience of anyone. In fact anyone who starts out thinking it is some kind of bliss to be achieved has not understood the basics. A subjective experience is not a knowledge that can be taught.
It is also not something to be attained 'after death' - Most religions equate going to heaven as the goal but this knowledge is about removing ignorance here & now.

Usually I preface if something is my view or opinion stating that unless in myunderstanding something is a categoric knowledge established objectively (It will be silly to say in my view gravity acts on me)


This knowledge has been reduced to writing to some extent by Sri Sankara. The whole in part aspects make this very hard to do much more. There are lots of works which are legitimate in my view but they are not substitutes, only aids.


Also a key part of learning is 'unlearning' which is dependent on individuals levels of maturity and is hard to codify.

2. Applying filter and taking what makes sense means you have already 'gotten it ' so to speak and you do not need anything else. Knowing when to apply a filter implies apriori knowledge.

3. I did not make this point well ,, I dont known anyone that came and claimed that they have become enlightened .. In fact if someone says that then they dont (kenaupanishad explains this beautifully). My point is that this is not an unachievable activity unless it is incorrectly portrayed as a state to be achieved after death. Trying can stop but first the problem has to be stated corrrectly.

PS: Pardon the typos .. Typed this in my ipad and have no time to edit. Traveling.. My response if any will be delayed

1. (a) Now I take this matter as settled. You believe that this knowledge is better propagated through a teacher-student interface whereas I believe there is nothing superior or inferior in the teaching methodology between the Guru-sishya interface and the student-book interface. You believe this knowledge has been propagated down to our era without books playing a primary role. I accept that while maintaining that there was nothing deliberate or chosen about it, that it just happened that way because the writing technology was primitive in its form through centuries. That Bhagavad Ramanuja had to travel all the way to Kashmir to take a look at an authentic original of the Bodhayana Sutra manuscript reminds me about the state of writing technology in our country in those times. So I maintain that these modern times, the books play a major role in the dissemination of knowledge and they supplement in a big way the role of teachers in a teacher-student interface. Choosing a good book falls to the task basket of a student whether he knows apriori what he wants or not. A random search by tags too can be a search for knowledge.

(b) Next is about the experience. You have agreed that the knowledge is not about subjective experience or a kind of bliss as claimed by some people. It is also not something to be attained after death as some people claim.

My position on this: This knowledge is within the boundaries of pure reason upto a point and then it transcends the boundaries of pure reason and straddles the vast territory of intuition. Initially pure reason needs to explain this knowledge because the substrate “I” can not move one nanometer forward without it in its pathways and will be stuck at the starting point with starting trouble. Whatever knowledge accrues , it accrues to this ‘’I’’ here and now. So this knowledge can not accrue in a surreptitious way without the ‘’I’’ knowing it. When thus ‘’I’’ knows that the knowledge has dawned, it also knows the nature of this knowledge and it should be explainable across the human spectrum in spite of all the limitations. The vocabulary of languages is growing by the day at a fast pace.LOL.

3. The frog's position is stated thus: When do I achieve everything that is there to be achieved? For that matter do any one know what all is there to be achieved? So every achievement is relative to an earlier position. I used to wonder whenever I came across news that a successful jain businessman had given up everything-a successful business, vast assets, close relatives, good food everything – to become a itinerant sanyasi, whether he was not making a loud statement of his same views about achievements? Similarly whenever a frail Jain widow decides to sit in a "sallekhana" and give up her life, the most precious possession with her, is it not a telling statement about this “achievements”?

I keep leaping across larger and still larger distances as long as I need it and then I stop. I start revisiting all that I have leaped across and then being humbled, surrender myself completely. The achievements become an unbearable burden and I give up leapfroging.

Tks, thanks for engaging me with patience.

 

[tks]

1. (a) Now I take this matter as settled. You believe that this knowledge is better propagated through a teacher-student interface whereas I believe there is nothing superior or inferior in the teaching methodology between the Guru-sishya interface and the student-book interface. You believe this knowledge has been propagated down to our era without books playing a primary role. I accept that while maintaining that there was nothing deliberate or chosen about it, that it just happened that way because the writing technology was primitive in its form through centuries. That Bhagavad Ramanuja had to travel all the way to Kashmir to take a look at an authentic original of the Bodhayana Sutra manuscript reminds me about the state of writing technology in our country in those times. So I maintain that these modern times, the books play a major role in the dissemination of knowledge and they supplement in a big way the role of teachers in a teacher-student interface. Choosing a good book falls to the task basket of a student whether he knows apriori what he wants or not. A random search by tags too can be a search for knowledge.

(b) Next is about the experience. You have agreed that the knowledge is not about subjective experience or a kind of bliss as claimed by some people. It is also not something to be attained after death as some people claim.

My position on this: This knowledge is within the boundaries of pure reason upto a point and then it transcends the boundaries of pure reason and straddles the vast territory of intuition. Initially pure reason needs to explain this knowledge because the substrate “I” can not move one nanometer forward without it in its pathways and will be stuck at the starting point with starting trouble. Whatever knowledge accrues , it accrues to this ‘’I’’ here and now. So this knowledge can not accrue in a surreptitious way without the ‘’I’’ knowing it. When thus ‘’I’’ knows that the knowledge has dawned, it also knows the nature of this knowledge and it should be explainable across the human spectrum in spite of all the limitations. The vocabulary of languages is growing by the day at a fast pace.LOL.

3. The frog's position is stated thus: When do I achieve everything that is there to be achieved? For that matter do any one know what all is there to be achieved? So every achievement is relative to an earlier position. I used to wonder whenever I came across news that a successful jain businessman had given up everything-a successful business, vast assets, close relatives, good food everything – to become a itinerant sanyasi, whether he was not making a loud statement of his same views about achievements? Similarly whenever a frail Jain widow decides to sit in a "sallekhana" and give up her life, the most precious possession with her, is it not a telling statement about this “achievements”?

I keep leaping across larger and still larger distances as long as I need it and then I stop. I start revisiting all that I have leaped across and then being humbled, surrender myself completely. The achievements become an unbearable burden and I give up leapfroging.

Tks, thanks for engaging me with patience.

Sri Vaagmi

Thanks for the engagement too -
Since you have taken the 'Purvapaksha' approach to lay out what I said, I thought I will just point to two key items that you left more than once - not sure if it was oversight or they did not seem key points .

These points as to why books are inadequate (from my prior posts in this thread) are

1. (Books vs teacher):

a. 'Whole in the part' aspects. I have elaborated on this earlier. The only thing I want to add is that every topic area has its most suited language. For example study of physics is best done in the 'languages' of mathematics. Sometimes new mathematics areas are invented just so the expressions are easily taken to next logical step.

In the case of topics like Vedanta, Sanskrit language with its 'architecture' and non-arbitrary words (i.e.,all words having verbal roots) is best suited for this topic. When one translates to other languages whose words are somewhat arbitrary there could be lot of misunderstanding. Many times on key areas there are also lack of equivalent words. This makes it difficult to communicate to students with book alone. It will be like teaching Physics in English or Tamil only without aid of serious mathematics. It can be done for many topic areas and will be hard to write books to get this across.

b. The importance of unlearning in the study of this topic area cannot be minimized. No book can help here easily since unlearning has to do with the student. The wrong notions coupled with acts of ego ( the one that says I) makes it hard to learn.

In topic areas like science and mathematics, books can help fill the void to let us 'unlearn'. Let me illustrate with a very basic example. If someone has known only decimal system all their life and they are told that in other arithmetic systems (say binary) the numbers are in this sequence 0, 1, 10, 11, 100 .. it will be very hard to accept this. Or in another base there are more than 9 digits etc. Some student may get this right away and some may not in which case some unlearning is involved before the generalized information is understood.

We will agree to disagree since the above are key reasons did not make it into your response earlier.

2. Knowledge and 'reason'

I think this may be more settled based on what you have written in the last post.
In terms of meanings of words used I tend to think intuition as a right brain and hence a mind activity while logical step by step reasoning as a left brain activity.

Mind is required initially and later it is an impediment to realization because of the self limiting aspects of the mind. So 'realization' is beyond intuition (based on my definition of the word).

Because what we exchange here or any book is only related to the mind activity this part of realization cannot be described here or on any book. it is beyond knowledge itself that can be codified in a book (all the more reason why books are inadequate )

I tend to understand the basic point you made and can resonate with that based on my understanding.

3. Frog/well, what is to be achieved etc

To share my perspectives:

You asked -

a. For that matter do any one know what all is there to be achieved?
Answer is: 'Question is not meaningful' . When the problem is stated as something to be achieved then the proverbial frog in the well has to keep jumping higher and higher and will discover that it is impossible to get out of the well.

Then there is a 'realized frog' with the right teacher realizes that it was never a frog in the first place and the well did not exist (and hence act of thinking of jumping itself is meaningless).

b. You talked about 'surrender' - Let me share my views here. One can surrender only once ever. If they surrendered periodically one could debate that the previous time was never a real surrender and was taken back to be surrendered again momentarily. So this again runs in parallel to the frog in the well making more valiant attempts and giving up and surrender again only to get up and try to do another leap.

You may know this already but let me paraphrase very loosely Sri Sankara's teaching here based on my understanding. Right Knowledge is Bhakthi, and Bhakthi is Knowledge. Right knowledge is actually surrender. The reason is that once there is knowledge about an item the ignorance is extinct for ever . It is real surrender that is based on knowledge and is permanent. Now what I have loosely stated is a subject material that will require enormous efforts often involving a life time to understand (and I am obviously not there just to be clear )

Regards

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear tks,

Since you have taken the 'Purvapaksha' approach to lay out what I said, I thought I will just point to two key items that you left more than once - not sure if it was oversight or they did not seem key points .
These points as to why books are inadequate (from my prior posts in this thread) are
1. (Books vs teacher):
a. 'Whole in the part' aspects. I have elaborated on this earlier. The only thing I want to add is that every topic area has its most suited language. For example study of physics is best done in the 'languages' of mathematics. Sometimes new mathematics areas are invented just so the expressions are easily taken to next logical step.
In the case of topics like Vedanta, Sanskrit language with its 'architecture' and non-arbitrary words (i.e.,all words having verbal roots) is best suited for this topic. When one translates to other languages whose words are somewhat arbitrary there could be lot of misunderstanding. Many times on key areas there are also lack of equivalent words. This makes it difficult to communicate to students with book alone. It will be like teaching Physics in English or Tamil only without aid of serious mathematics. It can be done for many topic areas and will be hard to write books to get this across.

While I agree with what you say about different languages and their uniqueness, I just wonder why you miss the point that language is just a tool to express and understand ideas. If I need a new language to understand or express an idea I will learn it or will invent it. You have said the same by your examples of maths and binary number system. If I find that the term “nirvikalpa pratyaksham” is a nuanced expression of an idea in Sankrit and if I am not getting it correctly through English I will learn Sanskrit/Tamil to understand it. And next time I read a Sanskrit/Tamil text with that word I will be in a better position to move on without getting stuck there. If I decide to go to a place and start cycling and the cycle breaks down I discard it and walk quickly or take another mode of transport and reach the destination. I certainly reach the destination without getting stuck with the bicycle. So my point is that teachers as well as books deliver knowledge to you in several languages. It is for you to learn a language to fulfill your needs of learning. The emphasis is more on learning and less on the language which is just a medium. I can write more on this but the need for brevity restricts.

b. The importance of unlearning in the study of this topic area cannot be minimized. No book can help here easily since unlearning has to do with the student. The wrong notions coupled with acts of ego ( the one that says I) makes it hard to learn.
In topic areas like science and mathematics, books can help fill the void to let us 'unlearn'. Let me illustrate with a very basic example. If someone has known only decimal system all their life and they are told that in other arithmetic systems (say binary) the numbers are in this sequence 0, 1, 10, 11, 100 .. it will be very hard to accept this. Or in another base there are more than 9 digits etc. Some student may get this right away and some may not in which case some unlearning is involved before the generalized information is understood.

I believe you can never get rid of the ego if the substrate “I” is what you are referring to. Leaving it at that, I call validation what you call unlearning. In science this is repeatability of a result independently. If I do not find validation I discard and you call this unlearning perhaps. Binary number system is just another way of looking at the numbers and a mind which is open to accept new ways of looking at things will have no difficulty accepting that new system. It is just a matter of drishtikone and the student has to be shifted to that angle by a teacher or has to voluntarily move to that angle to get it right. And I do not think there will be any resistance to that unless some one is too lazy.

We will agree to disagree since the above are key reasons did not make it into your response earlier.

—yes let us agree on that.

2. Knowledge and 'reason'
I think this may be more settled based on what you have written in the last post.
In terms of meanings of words used I tend to think intuition as a right brain and hence a mind activity while logical step by step reasoning as a left brain activity.
Mind is required initially and later it is an impediment to realization because of the self limiting aspects of the mind. So 'realization' is beyond intuition (based on my definition of the word).
Because what we exchange here or any book is only related to the mind activity this part of realization cannot be described here or on any book. it is beyond knowledge itself that can be codified in a book (all the more reason why books are inadequate )

Without appearing to be harsh, I would like to be honest and straight. I do not think it is possible to leave the “I” behind and have any experience. If someone claims there is such an experience, it can only be that he had temporarily forgotten the “I” which comes and attaches itself later. A mind which says it has left the “I” behind in its experience is a mind that has wandered into the maze of pshychic space aimlessly. So the bliss claimed to come from subject object merger as claimed by people is a numbness which is mistaken for bliss. The I always remains in control and command-sometimes passively and sometimes actively. So I believe every experience is shareable with people of same level of maturity. This is my understanding of the situation. I have yet to come across sufficiently forceful reasons to change this view. I do have an open mind.

I tend to understand the basic point you made and can resonate with that based on my understanding.
3. Frog/well, what is to be achieved etc
To share my perspectives:
You asked -
a. For that matter do any one know what all is there to be achieved?
Answer is: 'Question is not meaningful' . When the problem is stated as something to be achieved then the proverbial frog in the well has to keep jumping higher and higher and will discover that it is impossible to get out of the well.
Then there is a 'realized frog' with the right teacher realizes that it was never a frog in the first place and the well did not exist (and hence act of thinking of jumping itself is meaningless).

That is just an interesting way of looking at it. I asked the frog for its views on that and it gave this reply: For those who are outside the well of my world there is a world which is perhaps finite and hence full of things to be achieved. But for me going by my leaps within this well as units of measurement, the space outside my well isa meaningless infinity and so I am not bothered about it. What is achieved or not achieved there does not affect me. So they do not exist for me. If a teacher tells me I am not a frog I will discount that statement by 100%.LOL.

b. You talked about 'surrender' - Let me share my views here. One can surrender only once ever. If they surrendered periodically one could debate that the previous time was never a real surrender and was taken back to be surrendered again momentarily. So this again runs in parallel to the frog in the well making more valiant attempts and giving up and surrender again only to get up and try to do another leap.

You said it ! The surrender I am talking about is also a one time surrender. Let me quote here a sloka which explains beautifully what I mean:

Na dharmanishtOsmi na chAthmavEdhi na bhaktimAnstwachcharaNAravindhE
AkinchanO ananyagatissaraNya twatpAdhamoolam saranam prabhathyE.

You may know this already but let me paraphrase very loosely Sri Sankara's teaching here based on my understanding. Right Knowledge is Bhakthi, and Bhakthi is Knowledge. Right knowledge is actually surrender. The reason is that once there is knowledge about an item the ignorance is extinct for ever . It is real surrender that is based on knowledge and is permanent. Now what I have loosely stated is a subject material that will require enormous efforts often involving a life time to understand (and I am obviously not there just to be clear )

My understanding of the same teaching is this:

“Knowledge” is a stage called jnAna. It is knowledge about the self, the God and about what is good and bad for the self. Once this jnAna is acquired, it should in course of time mature into bhakti. Bhakti is jnAna supplemented by immense amount of pure love. So bhakti is the final matured state. Bhakti is a state of intense longing. Surrender helps.

Regards

 

[tks]

Dear tks,



While I agree with what you say about different languages and their uniqueness, I just wonder why you miss the point that language is just a tool to express and understand ideas. If I need a new language to understand or express an idea I will learn it or will invent it. You have said the same by your examples of maths and binary number system. If I find that the term “nirvikalpa pratyaksham” is a nuanced expression of an idea in Sankrit and if I am not getting it correctly through English I will learn Sanskrit/Tamil to understand it. And next time I read a Sanskrit/Tamil text with that word I will be in a better position to move on without getting stuck there. If I decide to go to a place and start cycling and the cycle breaks down I discard it and walk quickly or take another mode of transport and reach the destination. I certainly reach the destination without getting stuck with the bicycle. So my point is that teachers as well as books deliver knowledge to you in several languages. It is for you to learn a language to fulfill your needs of learning. The emphasis is more on learning and less on the language which is just a medium. I can write more on this but the need for brevity restricts.



I believe you can never get rid of the ego if the substrate “I” is what you are referring to. Leaving it at that, I call validation what you call unlearning. In science this is repeatability of a result independently. If I do not find validation I discard and you call this unlearning perhaps. Binary number system is just another way of looking at the numbers and a mind which is open to accept new ways of looking at things will have no difficulty accepting that new system. It is just a matter of drishtikone and the student has to be shifted to that angle by a teacher or has to voluntarily move to that angle to get it right. And I do not think there will be any resistance to that unless some one is too lazy.

—yes let us agree on that.



Without appearing to be harsh, I would like to be honest and straight. I do not think it is possible to leave the “I” behind and have any experience. If someone claims there is such an experience, it can only be that he had temporarily forgotten the “I” which comes and attaches itself later. A mind which says it has left the “I” behind in its experience is a mind that has wandered into the maze of pshychic space aimlessly. So the bliss claimed to come from subject object merger as claimed by people is a numbness which is mistaken for bliss. The I always remains in control and command-sometimes passively and sometimes actively. So I believe every experience is shareable with people of same level of maturity. This is my understanding of the situation. I have yet to come across sufficiently forceful reasons to change this view. I do have an open mind.



That is just an interesting way of looking at it. I asked the frog for its views on that and it gave this reply: For those who are outside the well of my world there is a world which is perhaps finite and hence full of things to be achieved. But for me going by my leaps within this well as units of measurement, the space outside my well isa meaningless infinity and so I am not bothered about it. What is achieved or not achieved there does not affect me. So they do not exist for me. If a teacher tells me I am not a frog I will discount that statement by 100%.LOL.



You said it ! The surrender I am talking about is also a one time surrender. Let me quote here a sloka which explains beautifully what I mean:

Na dharmanishtOsmi na chAthmavEdhi na bhaktimAnstwachcharaNAravindhE
AkinchanO ananyagatissaraNya twatpAdhamoolam saranam prabhathyE.



My understanding of the same teaching is this:

“Knowledge” is a stage called jnAna. It is knowledge about the self, the God and about what is good and bad for the self. Once this jnAna is acquired, it should in course of time mature into bhakti. Bhakti is jnAna supplemented by immense amount of pure love. So bhakti is the final matured state. Bhakti is a state of intense longing. Surrender helps.

Regards

Dear Sri Vaagmi



1. Language is indeed a tool to express ideas - certain problems are intractable that routine ways of addressing them are not realistic. (e.g., weather patterns are determined largely by Newton's laws but not possible to solve the problem directly using them though a different approach (e.g., strange attractors ) can provided results. Though we agree to leave the matter as it is, my thinking is that we are not talking about the same 'problem statement' perhaps. Regardless I do appreciate your engagement.

2. I did not talk about any experience or leaving 'I' behind - I accept limitations of not being to express any more in this medium. Perhaps one day if we meet we can talk more

3. OK, Let frog remain as it is ..
Bhakti, Love, Pure Love, surrender are words with meanings - often they mean different things to different people.
Hopefully we all can agree that word conveys a piece of knowledge.
I have reworded your statement to make a point ..

"“Knowledge” is a stage called jnAna. It is knowledge about the self, the 'abcd' and about what is good and bad for the self. Once this knowledge is acquired, it should in course of time mature into 'efgh'. 'efgh' is knowledge supplemented by immense amount of 'ijkl'. So 'efgh' is the final matured state. 'efgh' is a state of intense longing. 'mnop' helps.

For knowledge about a reality that gives to space and time there just are too many definitions and many cannot relate to Bhakti in sustained manner because its meaning (knowledge) will be unclear.

Having said this you seem to have deep appreciation for what these words mean to you and I respect that and leave the debate as it is

Once again thanks for engagement

Regards

 

[sarang]

I understand one cannot think without a language. Words and experiences are necessary to convert and express thoughts. Conversely it is impossible to think without word-language knowledge.

1. Language is indeed a tool to express ideas

 

[sravna]

I understand one cannot think without a language. Words and experiences are necessary to convert and express thoughts. Conversely it is impossible to think without word-language knowledge.

Dear Shri Sarang,

It is my understanding that one doesn't need language to think. Didn't the primitive men before language was invented, think and progress? In my view language is only useful to communicate with others

 

[sarang]

Even to understand brahman (saguna or nirguna) one needs the words and the paths shown in vedopanishads. An emptied mind (through meditation) of the seeker is soon filled with words, pictures and sounds of brahman. That is why it is recommended to meditate on the forms and attributes of brahman in all our mathams. How can one even think of another world, say heaven, without a word, picture or sound to define that?

Dear Shri Sarang,

It is my understanding that one doesn't need language to think. Didn't the primitive men before language was invented, think and progress? In my view language is only useful to communicate with others