By: Nagesh D. Sonde

Published by:


I have been studying Rigveda for number of years, yet it would be presumptuous on my part if I say that I have known veda., let alone experienced it. Veda is Wisdom and not Knowledge. Knowledge can be known but Wisdom has to be experienced. It is easy to communicate what one knows, it is difficult to communicate experience, awareness. Therefore, I say I have attempted to know but I am not yet bold enough to say that I have experienced, am aware of it. A man of Wisdom does not speak and should not speak, he remains silent, he should remain silent. That silence would not be the silence of the grave yard, but the silence of the mountains, of the rivers, of the breeze who are aware of the existence yet find no need to speak about it. It is the lively silence. It is the silence when you drop your memories, your thoughts, your knowledge. In that very silence there is a roar like that of a lion awakened from its stupor.

Speaking about the Art of Listening, J. Krishnsmurti remarked ‘To be able really to listen, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices, pre-formulations and daily activities. When you are in a receptive state of mind, things can easily be understood . . . But unfortunately most of us listen through a screen of prejudices, . . .whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific . . . It is difficult to put aside our prejudices, our inclinations, our resistance and reaching beyond the verbal expression, to listen so that we understand instantaneously’.

For listening fruitfully and effectively he suggests that one should just listen, not resist, even if anything is said which is opposed to our way of thinking and belief. Because truth cannot be given to any one by somebody, we have to discover it. To discover one should have direct perception, and direct perception is not possible if there is resistance, a safeguard, a protection.

Books become irrelevant if they do not satisfy this primary condition and accepted instead as tradition, a belief, and a faith. The words spoken there lose the ring, that quality of Truth, which they might have once when they were spoken, ending up being mere words, preserved and protected by organized religions or institutional zealots guardians. A Truth is not realized when one quotes scriptures, using some one else’s experiences and words and symbols used because what one quotes are only the words contained in the scriptures and not the experience of the Truth which one has realized. About silence one can not speak because what one speaks of silence would all be wrong. That is why upanishadic teacher avers. Yet a human being speaks, not because he only knows and is not aware, but because he speaks thinking and hoping that his words, even though do not reveal the whole entirety and complete of all that he has experienced and been aware of, may yet be steps on which others may experience experiences and be aware of enlightened awareness. This is what the vedic seers attempted in recording their awareness; this is what the upansihadic teachers suggested when they clarified their understanding. Neither vedic seers nor the upanishadic teachers assure enlightened awareness; they only offer a platform for one to stand upon, as a jumping board to take a leap from what they have known to what they want to be aware.

If one becomes enlightened, aware and wise, such one would be a blessed one. If one does not become enlightened, aware and wise it does not mean that he has not tried, not realized, not been aware of. It only means, it could only mean that he has not been able to, or he has not the calibre, the skill to speak out what he has become enlightened, aware and wise.

When one quotes the scripture as an authority and not as a basis for clarifying one’s mind, it shows that one’s mind is confused and not ready for being receptive. Scriptures are important and may even be indispensable pointers, indicators on the path to Perfection but they can be fatal if one accepts and relies on them, without analyzing, harmonizing, reformulating and adapting them with newly emerging situations in human life, or are treated with wholly unwarranted respect and reverence, then the symbols tend to become barriers to clarity of mind and receptivity to Truth. Religions and the Scriptures create> divisions in minds and people if one seeks security in one or the other beliefs, faiths and religions. Only he, who stripping himself of the prejudices and pre-conditioned mind has investigated, analyzed the world beliefs and faiths without raising them to the level of dogmas and using them only as operational and provisional tools to harmonize reformulate and adapt them to the situations on hand can be called a man with receptive mind.

This is neither a Book of Revealtions or Book of the one’s Experiences. It is only a book what which gives explanation of the hymns as they struck to the author’s intellect, documented as remembrance to what one experienced in one’s own inner mind. If some one finds themselves useful may accept them others may keep it aside as one more of the many books on the subject matter.

There is no need to agree with every thing that is written here. Suffice if one just reads with open minded receptivity. Confirmation is not expected, because these explanation to the hymns were primarily for my own self and not for others to be convinced. If they help, as they have helped the author the effort will be considered worthwhile. If even slightest of success comes out of this effort, it will be assumed that the effort was well accomplished. In either case my own gradual progress towards enlightenment will not thereby be hindered.

The book has been documented, transcribed, edited, checked by the author alone, therefore, there are bound to be innumerable errors in transcribing the original text, in writing proper grammatical language, or in words spelled correctly. The book need not be rejected on any of these grounds. If one feels good such one may accept or reject as one prefers and chooses.