The word 'lost soul' is a linguistic variant of the phenomenal being caught in the mire of Maya and oblivious of its moorings. These are nuances of the language which will have to be understood. So far as the way you put it, I must say that even then it is the SELF that is never lost etc. and not the soul which, of course, in its deluded state, is always lost and is in the quest of its roots in the SELF, for the soul is a phenomenal projection, a shadowy being whose real essence is the SELF while the soul itself remains in the realm of relativity ever, even at its subtlest and sublimest level. This is the problem with bookish knowledge ill-digested without actual experience to authenticate assertion. The soul is not the SELF which is the transcendental Real Being. It is the refined version of the mind itself, dwelling in the sixth plane of consciousness where dualistic perception of the Divine takes place. However, the word 'lost soul' has been used as in common parlance and the way I have put it, there is perfect congruity in its linguistic sense and no incongruity in its philosophical sense, too, as I have elucidated. So, whither the necessity of course correction, dear friend?
Have you, dear friend, never heard of the terms 'bound soul', 'embodied soul', 'lost soul', 'realised soul', 'valiant soul' etc.? Ponder before you comment. The way you have picked up fault-lines faultily may further be expanded upon in terms of offence taken against the terms 'religion', 'recovery of roots' etc. as well. Well, well, my dear friend, I can go on deliberating on the use or misuse of these terms ad infinitum but that is not the purpose of literature or expressed thought as you very well must be knowing. The manifest purpose of language is to convey the intent of the idea and never the idea as such, for the latter ever eludes the effective grasp of the former, being itself subtler than the vehicle of its expression. Anyhow, these are abstruse matters that require the subtlest of spiritual intelligence to apprehend and is not for the common run of humanity to read up in the evening of life and pass quick comment on. These are the priceless possessions of our human heritage and they have had their habitat in this blessed motherland of ours to meditate on their real meaning instead of picking imaginary loopholes hither and thither which are expressive of one's ignorance rather than illumined knowledge. Hence, I rest the case here of the defence of my post and leave it to the good sense of the reader to dwell on and comprehend its real intent, purport and essence.
Curiously enough, I am reminded of an incident from the life of the great Swami Vivekananda when on his triumphant return from the West he was drawn into debate with some erudite Brahmins on some abstruse aspect of Sanskrit grammar. During the debate Swamiji inadvertently --- owing to lack of practice for years in conversation in Sanskrit for the four years of his American and European sojourn --- slipped once in speech, misusing one word for another, and the Sanskrit scholars all broke out into derisive laughter at this. With typical humility the Swami begged forgiveness for his linguistic slip and rectified stance thereon. Later, he recounted this episode to his disciple, Sarat Chandra Chakrabarty, and said, "Well, this is the problem with Indians. They are always scratching the surface of things and are quick to pounce on one in dialogue or debate at the least bit of opportunity afforded whereas in the West such a demeanour would be considered highly discourteous. They would rather look into the intent of the speech rather than on the surface slip and would be content to get along with the course of the dialogue.'' It is typical that we harbour such an inappropriate attitude still, proving once again the old adage, 'A little knowledge is dangerous.'
Thanking you all and expecting you to read this piece,
I remain yours In Thakur-Ma-Swamiji,
Sugata Bose
Have you, dear friend, never heard of the terms 'bound soul', 'embodied soul', 'lost soul', 'realised soul', 'valiant soul' etc.? Ponder before you comment. The way you have picked up fault-lines faultily may further be expanded upon in terms of offence taken against the terms 'religion', 'recovery of roots' etc. as well. Well, well, my dear friend, I can go on deliberating on the use or misuse of these terms ad infinitum but that is not the purpose of literature or expressed thought as you very well must be knowing. The manifest purpose of language is to convey the intent of the idea and never the idea as such, for the latter ever eludes the effective grasp of the former, being itself subtler than the vehicle of its expression. Anyhow, these are abstruse matters that require the subtlest of spiritual intelligence to apprehend and is not for the common run of humanity to read up in the evening of life and pass quick comment on. These are the priceless possessions of our human heritage and they have had their habitat in this blessed motherland of ours to meditate on their real meaning instead of picking imaginary loopholes hither and thither which are expressive of one's ignorance rather than illumined knowledge. Hence, I rest the case here of the defence of my post and leave it to the good sense of the reader to dwell on and comprehend its real intent, purport and essence.
Curiously enough, I am reminded of an incident from the life of the great Swami Vivekananda when on his triumphant return from the West he was drawn into debate with some erudite Brahmins on some abstruse aspect of Sanskrit grammar. During the debate Swamiji inadvertently --- owing to lack of practice for years in conversation in Sanskrit for the four years of his American and European sojourn --- slipped once in speech, misusing one word for another, and the Sanskrit scholars all broke out into derisive laughter at this. With typical humility the Swami begged forgiveness for his linguistic slip and rectified stance thereon. Later, he recounted this episode to his disciple, Sarat Chandra Chakrabarty, and said, "Well, this is the problem with Indians. They are always scratching the surface of things and are quick to pounce on one in dialogue or debate at the least bit of opportunity afforded whereas in the West such a demeanour would be considered highly discourteous. They would rather look into the intent of the speech rather than on the surface slip and would be content to get along with the course of the dialogue.'' It is typical that we harbour such an inappropriate attitude still, proving once again the old adage, 'A little knowledge is dangerous.'
Thanking you all and expecting you to read this piece,
I remain yours In Thakur-Ma-Swamiji,
Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment