--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > File : /Vedic "Science"/KnowStructOSX.pdf > Uploaded by : vajradhatu108 <vajradh...@...> > Description : The famous "knowledge is structured in > consciousness" mis-translation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi > from the Rig Veda.
Note that what Vaj posted in this file is neither (a) what he claimed in his recent post was MMY's translation (he said it came from "MIU documents"), nor (b) the translation MMY was using at least since 1985. It's closer to the latter, but there are still many differences. Here's the translation from Vaj's file: "Richa is situated in Akshara: knowledge is structured in consciousness, the nonchanging transcendental basis of all relative existence, in which reside the impulses of creative intelligence responsible for the whole manifest universe. "He whose awareness is not open to this level of reality, what can these eternal expressions of knowledge accomplish for him? He whose awareness is open to it--the field of pure consciousness, the home of all knowledge--is profoundly established in it." And here's the translation MMY has been using at least since 1985 (that's the earliest citation I can find, but he may have been using it well before that): "The verses of the Ved exist in the collapse of fullness (the Kshara of 'A') in the transcendental field, in which reside all the devas, the impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of nature responsible for the whole manifest universe. "He whose awareness is not open to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are established in evenness, wholeness of life." The verse actually means "seated in > the highest heaven", not "structured in consciousness" > as often claimed by TM-bots. It's not "claimed" by anybody who is familiar with the translation I quoted, because "structured in consciousness" isn't in it. Vaj doesn't mean to say "the verse," BTW; he's referring to a phrase in the verse, "parame vyoman." Note that "parame vyoman" is translated as "the nonchanging transcendental basis of all relative existence" in Vaj's file, and more simply as "the transcendental field" in the translation I quoted. In neither version is it translated as "structured in consciousness." Where Vaj got the "seated in the highest heaven" translation is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be on the Web in any translations, TM or non-, of this verse. But it's not too difficult to see how someone doing a "poetic" translation might use the phrase "the highest heaven" for a Sanskrit term for which someone else striving for a more precise and technical translation would use "transcendental field." To claim one or the other is a "mistranslation" is foolish, to say the least (sort of like interpreting Genesis based on a literal reading of the King James translation). Vaj's confusion here is so convoluted it would take forever to straighten out, so I'm not going to try. > From the original 1974/75 MIU Catalogue page XI If you Google any of the distinctive phrases in the translation I quoted, you'll get many hits citing it and attributing it to Maharishi, including at least three times on the MUM Web site. Here's one instance: http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/tm.htm I couldn't find on the Web any of the distinctive phrases in the translation in Vaj's file. Obviously if MMY translated it that way at one time, he subsequently revised it (probably after he developed his Apaurusheya Bhashya ideas). The one I quoted is the only translation I've ever seen used in the TM context. Oh, this is interesting. Here's Aurobindo's translation: "The Rishi Dirghatamas speaks of the Riks, the Mantras of the Veda, as existing 'in a supreme ether, imperishable and immutable in which all the gods are seated,' and he adds 'one who knows not That what shall he do with the Rik?'" Which seems closer to "supreme ether, imperishable and immutable": "highest heaven" or "transcendental field"? If Vaj had a genuine point to make, he'd do well to take another crack at it when he's able to think clearly, because what he's posted up to this point is nonsense.
