Three Levels Of Learning

Everyone knows about the relationship that existed between Shri Krishna, Pandavas and Kauravas. Kunti was the sister of Vasudeva, Krishna's father. Her name was "Pruthaa" at birth and she came to be known as "Kunti" after she was adopted by her uncle, King Kuntibhoja. The first three Pandavas were Kunti's children and also known as Kaunteya. The other two Pandavas, Nakula and Sahadeva were Maadri's sons, but after Maadri's death Kunti brought them up as her own sons. Thus Krishna and Pandavas were first cousins. Krishna was the Mentor for the Pandavas. Whatever they did was with Krishna's permission and guidance. 

Kauravas were always distrustful of Krishna and looked upon him as a stumbling block in their designs to deny Pandavas of their Kingdom or its share, whatever. Shakuni was Kauravas Mentor and all his calculated steps were to remove Krishna from the scene, as far as possible, so that he succeeds in executing his plans. The hostility between Duryodhana and Krishna is as much well documented as the warmth between Arjuna and Krishna.

Arjuna is said to have ten names. Krishna had many names. Keshava and VAsudeva were the most common names used for Krishna. 

It was quite natural that Pandavas would feel sad if Krishna was in trouble. It was also natural that Kauravas would feel elated whenever Krishna was in difficulty. 

There is a beautiful sloka that shows the reverse of this. It is very interesting as well. It goes thus:

केशवं पतितं दृष्ट्वा पाण्डवाः हर्ष निर्भराः 

रुदन्ति कौरवाः सर्वे हा हा केशव केशव 

Keshavam patitam drushtvaa Pandavaah harsha nirbharaah

Rudanti Kauravaah sarve Haa Haa Keshava keshava

Having seen fallen Krishna, Pandavas became overjoyed.

All the Kauravaas started crying shouting how bad, Keshava has fallen.

Anyone who has some understanding of the language can read the above verse and understand the situation. And the meaning coming out of the verse.

*****

A school boy is reading "Mahabharata". A college student is also reading the same epic for his examination preparation. A PhD scholar too is preparing a thesis for submission on the same subject. A saint who gives regular discourses on various spiritual topics is also reading the same work by revered Veda Vyasa. 

Is the learning derived by all the four the same? Is there any difference in the level of their learning? If there is any difference, why is it so?

Four visitors go to "National Gallery of Arts" in Washington DC. It is a magnificent building with many rooms and galleries displaying arts. At the reception they receive a brochure giving the details of the building, rooms in it and various important art works displayed therein. It also gives indications as to highlights of the collection. Most of the visitors would not be able to spend considerable time at the museum as they usually have a day to cover the various other parts of the city and its heritage. The brochure therefore gives indication as to what areas can be seen in one hour, two hours or half a day as well. The first three visitors go by this guidance and finish their museum visit accordingly. The fourth visitor has no such restrictions and as a student of arts spends two full days viewing and studying each artefacts in the museum.  

When you ask each of them whether they have visited and seen the National Gallery of Arts, all of them answer in the affirmative. They have all visited the place and seen the museum. But is the viewing experience and learning they derive therefrom the same?

*****

There are many people who claim that they are self taught and have learnt many things on their own, without any support or guidance from others. After all, one knows the language and can read and write. There are books available in the market or library or other sources. Buy the book or borrow one and just read them. You can understand the contents. It is as simple as that. 

There is a strong opinion that one should learn subtle things, especially abstract and spiritual issues, through a Guru. But it is not easy to find a proper Guru though there are plenty of self proclaimed Gurus around us. This is the era of Jagadgurus. What happens if the Guru himself has not reached a level befitting the status of a true Guru? What if his own understanding is imperfect? Then it becomes a classic example of a blind leading another blind person. Many ancient texts give guidelines and indicators to identify a genuine Guru. A real Guru does not impose his dictates on a disciple. He would only give sincere guidance and advise the seeker-disciple to accept things only after his own verifications and experiences.

What are the pitfalls of self learning? 

Many abstract and spiritual texts, especially Vedic literature texts are amenable to multiple interpretations. This is because the rich language used in these source text have words that carry multiple meanings; not just the words, even the passages or the whole text can be explained in totally different ways and often entirely contradictory.  Many stalwarts have used their versatility and ingenuity to give their own version of meanings to many of the texts. .An example for this is available in “Brahma Sutra Bhashyas” of the various Acharyas. Each one of them has given his own interpretation of the sutras and when a layman reads them each one of them appears to be perfect. Only a “Jignasu” devoting his life for a thorough study of these texts and commentaries can make out any deficiencies. 

There is also the issue of a reader understanding what he reads in accordance with his own background, knowledge and desire as well. We know from our experience that when a passage is given to different persons and ask their understanding of it, the answers differ.

Nevertheless, all learning must ultimately end with self study and culminate by finding the true meaning as the seeker sees it in the light of guidance received from time to time, and his own experiences during his spiritual journey.

*****

It is said that "Language" used in various texts has three levels of meaning. They can be summarised(?) as under:

1. Samadhi Bhasha (समाधि भाषा - ಸಮಾಧಿ ಭಾಷೆ): This is the language that is commonly understood by everyone. A simple reading of the written words will give out this meaning and the world at large accepts this as what is intended to be conveyed. A study of the valued texts by one who just understands the language and does not have a proper guide will understand the contents at this level.

       

2. Darshana Bhasha (दर्शन भाषा -  ದರ್ಶನ ಭಾಷೆ): This is the meaning given to the texts as conveyed by the exponents of different schools of thoughts and summarised truth as found by them. This meaning is often different from the first level Samadhi Bhasha. Examples of this type are Jaina, Bouddha, Adwaita, Dwaita etc. Here, the texts are to be understood in the meaning as conveyed by the authors. Whether the seeker accepts that school of thought is an entirely separate issue and left to his own spiritual experiences.

 3. Guhya Bhasha (गुह्य भाषा - ಗುಹ್ಯ ಭಾಷೆ): This is the real meaning of the words or texts that is intended to be conveyed and understood. The messages are covered in a language that is commonly understood differently, but have special inner meaning. Guhya means hidden. This is similar to coded messages; the outward reading conveys a simple meaning as understood by the world at large. But a person who has the key to the coded message will understand the hidden and deeper meaning. 

"Smiling Buddha" can be an example. Anyone who heard this in the year 1974 would link it to the Smiling Buddha often quoted in Buddhism. But those involved in the Pokhran nuclear tests understood the real meaning then.

How does one get hold of the key to the code? It may be given by a revered Guru or derived by deep contemplation by the seeker himself. These hidden meanings themselves may extend to multiple levels and may open up one after the other as the seeker travels along his spiritual journey. Some of these meanings suddenly flash in the mind on some day and the seeker may wonder why this did not occur to him earlier! "It was there all along, yet I did not see it", he may exclaim!

*****

In the background of all this, learning should happen with the following basic structure:

1. The texts chosen for study are themselves authentic and removed from the common impurities like Interpolation, Deletion, and Disorder. Interpolation is additions by the editor, which was not there in the original text but got added during transit. Deletion refers to the parts removed by the editors as they considered these parts as unwanted but has real importance in the overall context of things. Disorder is a defect that creeps when the editors change the sequence of communication by the original author or are modified by the subsequent handlers of the texts. Eagerness to reinforce one's own philosophy often are the causes of these defects.

2.  A detailed study of the related texts from beginning to end and not mere parts of them or their summaries. Fruit juice is good but does not substitute the experience of eating the whole fruit. It is common knowledge that the summary contains what the summariser considers as important. There is every possibility that the true essence is lost while summarising the content in the original text. It is often like reading a few pages of a book and trying to make out the meaning of the entire book. This is a very dangerous path for the seeker.

3. Analysing and evaluating all learning in the light of the seekers own experiences. Unless this step is adopted, the seeker will only get the truth as someone else saw it, but not by himself. It may be the truth as seen by some big achiever or saadhaka, but even then, it is not one's own learning. The food prepared may be delicious, tasted by many and its qualities explained by many more. But the true taste comes only when one eats and appreciates it and not by hearing from others or reading about it. Otherwise what the seeker gets is mere words; not the food itself.

*****

Let us get back to our example of Krishna's fall and the reactions of Pandavas and Kauravas. A reader with limited understanding of the language will come to the conclusion that Pandavas were overjoyed but Kauravas felt very bad when Krishna fell. Here the fall may be just a fall on the ground or even the end as happens in a war. We all know what a fallen soldier means in the context of a war.

The words Keshava, Pandava and Kourava can have entirely different meanings. When the quoted verse is read in this context, its meaning dramatically changes.

The word "Shava" means a dead body or a part of it. It may refer to a piece of meat as well as it is the part of a dead person or animal. "Ke" also means water. The word "Pandava" also means animals living in water, like fish etc. The word "Rava" means noise especially made by birds. (Remember कल-रव ಕಲ-ರವ)  The crows make noise "Ka" "Ka" continuously. So, a group of crows making such noise is Kauravas.

When this is applied to the verse refered above, the meaning dramatically changes and is read and understood as under:

    "A bird was flying carrying a piece of meat in its beak. The piece of meat slipped from its beak and fell in a water body on the ground. The fish living in the water body were overjoyed because they can eat it. The group of crows observing this were sad and cried about the lost piece of meat as they lost the chance of eating it (if it had fallen on the ground)."

    

*****

The above example amply illustrates the different levels of learning and dangers of self learning, especially in the context of abstract and spiritual issues. There is absolutely no doubt that any learning should ultimately be evaluated by one's own experiences, as discussed above. But self learning cannot be the beginning and end in itself.