Rishi: my musings
Wikpedia: "A Rishi (or rishika, when referring to female rishis) is a sage of insight, one who practices self-cultivation as a Yogini or Yogi and attains asamprajñata Samadhi. A person through Yogic concentration first attains samprajñata samadhi (realisation of the independence of soul and body, Atma and Prakriti) and with continued effort attains asamprajñata samadhi (realisation of oneness with all). The Rishi's soul is interpreted as imbibing wisdom directly from the universal source. Vedic hymns are sermons conceived as delivered by divine inspiration by the rishis."
A Rishi utters, unalloyed by his mind or ego, the truth that he uncovers, so to say, by his tapas. He not only knows what he speaks, but becomes one with the truth that he expresses pithily. Variations in the expressions of different Rishis are reconcilable and arise due to trying to convey in words what is in essence ineffable. A prophet perhaps acts as a conduit and may not know what he is talking about, but it is inappropriate to equate such a prophet with Rishi. Another word used in this connection is tatvadarsi. tatva is truth, it means 'that you are'. The one who realises it is a tatvadarsi. He is not an ignoramus repeating like a parrot some momentous truth, but a realised soul who speaks from the depth of his being.
There is a sloka from Bhavabhuti. The translation runs thus: "With the pious man of the world their language follows the sense, whereas with the seers (Rishis) of old, the sense runs after their speech." The beauty of it is lost in the translation, though it is rendered in chaste English (obviously not my effort).
One might have read in Julius Caesar, "Not that he loved Caesar less, But that he loved Rome more." If you put it in prose, it will look lacking sense, but Shakespeare has struck a chord in our hearts with that usage.
Getting back to Bhavabhuti, the idea is, normally we have something to convey and find words to do that, often we may grope, but pious men find apt words. But, Rishis do not have the need to say anything, they are impelled to describe the truth that they have realised and whatever they say is full of meaning. Meaning comes later, words come first. It is not as though the meaning is laboured. It flows naturally and rhythmically.
Therefore, if anyone thinks that the Rishis did not know what they were uttering, that will be an error.
Wikpedia: "A Rishi (or rishika, when referring to female rishis) is a sage of insight, one who practices self-cultivation as a Yogini or Yogi and attains asamprajñata Samadhi. A person through Yogic concentration first attains samprajñata samadhi (realisation of the independence of soul and body, Atma and Prakriti) and with continued effort attains asamprajñata samadhi (realisation of oneness with all). The Rishi's soul is interpreted as imbibing wisdom directly from the universal source. Vedic hymns are sermons conceived as delivered by divine inspiration by the rishis."
A Rishi utters, unalloyed by his mind or ego, the truth that he uncovers, so to say, by his tapas. He not only knows what he speaks, but becomes one with the truth that he expresses pithily. Variations in the expressions of different Rishis are reconcilable and arise due to trying to convey in words what is in essence ineffable. A prophet perhaps acts as a conduit and may not know what he is talking about, but it is inappropriate to equate such a prophet with Rishi. Another word used in this connection is tatvadarsi. tatva is truth, it means 'that you are'. The one who realises it is a tatvadarsi. He is not an ignoramus repeating like a parrot some momentous truth, but a realised soul who speaks from the depth of his being.
There is a sloka from Bhavabhuti. The translation runs thus: "With the pious man of the world their language follows the sense, whereas with the seers (Rishis) of old, the sense runs after their speech." The beauty of it is lost in the translation, though it is rendered in chaste English (obviously not my effort).
One might have read in Julius Caesar, "Not that he loved Caesar less, But that he loved Rome more." If you put it in prose, it will look lacking sense, but Shakespeare has struck a chord in our hearts with that usage.
Getting back to Bhavabhuti, the idea is, normally we have something to convey and find words to do that, often we may grope, but pious men find apt words. But, Rishis do not have the need to say anything, they are impelled to describe the truth that they have realised and whatever they say is full of meaning. Meaning comes later, words come first. It is not as though the meaning is laboured. It flows naturally and rhythmically.
Therefore, if anyone thinks that the Rishis did not know what they were uttering, that will be an error.
No comments:
Post a Comment