For example, in 1899 G A N and co - the beginning
"I will read to you from another of the Upanishads. This is one of the simplest, but, I think, one of the most poetical. It is called the Katha Upanishad. Some of you, perhaps, have read the translation by Sir Edwin Arnold. In our last we saw that the enquiry which started with the origin of the world, and the creation of the Universe, failed to obtain a satisfactory answer from without, and how it went inward."
In 1902 VS New York
"I will read to you from one of the simplest, but, I think, one of the most poetical of the Upanishads. It is called the Katha Upanishad. Some of you, perhaps, have read the translation by Sir Edwin Arnold, called "The Secret of Death." In our last lecture we saw how the inquiry which started with the origin of the world, and the creation of the universe, failed to obtain a satisfactory answer from without, and how it then turned inward."
In online at Belur Math -
"I will read to you from one of the Upanishads. It is called the Katha Upanishad. Some of you, perhaps, have read the translation by Sir Edwin Arnold, called the Secret of Death. In our last [i.e. a previous] lecture we saw how the inquiry which started with the origin of the world, and the creation of the universe, failed to obtain a satisfactory answer from without, and how it then turned inwards."
So for every lecture I have to do a lot of comparison to arrive at the exact text spoken by Swami Vivekananda. Whatever might have been the principles of editing, I do not understand the stance taken.
***
see in the GAN ed the word which first occurred was 'enquiry'. Because the search began outside and after a circle it was to become inwards. So the mind of V naturally uses the word 'enquiry'. But in 1902 and now the word is 'inquiry'. If it starts as 'inquiry' how come can it turn inwards? More conspicuous is the portion - 1899 GAN ed - "We have heard always that there is a path in every religion which insists on our faith. We have been taught to believe blindly. Well, this idea of blind faith is objectionable, no doubt no doubt it is very objectionable but analysing it we find that behind it is a very great truth. What they really mean is what we read now. " 1902 VS NY ed - "We have always heard that there is a path in every religion which insists on our faith. We have been taught to believe blindly. Well, this idea of blind faith is objectionable, no doubt no doubt it is very objectionable but analyzing it we find that behind it is a very great truth. What it really means is what we read now. " as on now online - "We have always heard that every religion insists on our having faith. We have been taught to believe blindly. Well, this idea of blind faith is objectionable, no doubt, but analysing it, we find that behind it is a very great truth. What it really means is what we read now." ----- You yourself can compare and see how meaning changes drastically when 'We have heard always that there is a path in every religion which insists on our faith.' is replaced by 'We have always heard that every religion insists on our having faith.' Can you see ?
If GAN ed version is the original exact words spoken, then when V says that there is a path in every religion which insists on our faith, a world of meanings becomes evident in this construction. 1) V does not equate just like that Religon = Faith. (it has great implications) 2) every religion has a path which insists on blind faith - why? to help the 'not-so-abled'. To start the beginners with. 3) V very consistent to his other writings and talks thinks that Religion is also the study of aspects pertaining to the same Reality as the Science deals with. He never preempties the field of religion by branding it as 'purely faith-matters'. ----- But in the present form of the sentence all these spectrum of meanings get lost.....fushhhhh in one stroke and the picture you get is -- V OPINES RELIGION IS EQUAL TO FAITH. Afterwards it is only faith vs blind faith that is all. V as a thinker gets lost and instead V as a preacher put up.
Reading 'My Master' also I find lot of changes when compared to 1901 ed The Baker and Taylor Co, New York. OMG ! now how can I read happily that this was what the Divine Mouth uttered ?
This GAN ed also cannot be 1899. It is third edition and revised and the preface says 'late Vivekananda', so after July 1902
In the Lectures from Colombo to Almora, in the first lecture this passage comes -
"For today, under the blasting light of modern science, when old and apparently strong and invulnerable beliefs have been shattered to their very foundations, when special claims laid to the allegiance of mankind by different sects have been all blown into atoms and have vanished into air, when the sledge-hammer blows of modern antiquarian researches are pulverising like masses of porcelain all sorts of antiquated orthodoxies, when religion in the West is only in the hands of the ignorant and the knowing ones look down with scorn upon anything belonging to religion, here comes to the fore the philosophy of India, which displays the highest religious aspirations of the Indian mind, where the grandest philosophical facts have been the practical spirituality of the people. This naturally is coming to the rescue, the idea of the oneness of all, the Infinite, the idea of the Impersonal, the wonderful idea of the eternal soul of man, of the unbroken continuity in the march of beings, and the infinity of the universe. The old sects looked upon the world as a little mud-puddle and thought that time began but the other day. It was there in our old books, and only there that the grand idea of the infinite range of time, space, and causation, and above all, the infinite glory of the spirit of man governed all the search for religion."
In this passage, 'The old sects looked upon the world as a little mud-puddle and thought that time began but the other day. It was there in our old books, and only there that the grand idea of the infinite range of time, space, and causation, and above all, the infinite glory of the spirit of man governed all the search for religion' does not mean consistently. The juxtaposition is lame. Why should 'the old sects' think of the world as mud-puddle? and why should it think that the time began but the other day? when the next sentence says that the grand idea of the infinite range of time of our old books? Then those who think that the world is just a mud-puddle and the time began the other day cannot be our old books. Of course 'thinking of the world as mud-puddle' is confusing since it has been used as an expression of Vedanta to indicate the evanescence. But here the usage is about the over-bearing boldness which treats the world as just mud-puddle. Then who are the old sects? It is here that the editorship should have played an active and intrusive role coming out with viable explanations. But the places like this are coming all along untouched. My suggestion here will be - it is not 'the old sects' but it should have been 'the bold west'. The short-hand transcriptions should have been checked.
***
The fight he had with the Theosophists and the traditionalists -cum- sympathisers of Theosophical Movement must be bourne in mind while reading the Indian lectures of Swami Vivekananda. I now understand why he was so cautious in his statements, much alien to his usual attitude.
Imitating Vivekananda, blindly quoting him, making some of his quotes and phrases as cliches, I think Ramakrishna-Vivekananda enthsiasts have not realised the importance of difficult task of relating, reinterpreting and reifying the old systems with the new. Also the double pronged stances of Vivekananda, i.e. one stance to the reformers and one stance to the followers even though both are open, left an opinion on the minds of both that 'he will be taking all stands and hence confusing'. His mind is not like that and why he was saying what he said becomes meaningful on deep study. But you cannot always expect deep study to go with the general people. But subsequent monks and scholars of Vivekananda should have taken upon themselves the very difficult task of maintaining correspondence and correlation between what he said and what concepts were core to the traditional Hinduism. Instead of that intelligent work, all the relevant people have chosen to maintain only spin-off stances based on his random collection of teachings. I may not be correct. But just to share what occurs to me at least among limited friends.
***
But the need is not 'seen' by both sides. The Traditionalists - for them he is purely irrelevant. He was more a Deux-machina at the juncture perhapds warding off. That too on pressing so much just not to snub us in the face they may concede. In their eyes, their system is intact and clear without any confusion. As to the Ramakrishnaites (if not Vivekanadaites) all scriptures are just foot-notes or bandaram of apt quotes to bejewel the Holy Trio's words and they are not worth anything more. Even many monks do not know what was real vedantha and where Vivekananda's interpretation differs. Even if you write so no takers.
That too after international-proof given by ISKCON that you need not budge an inch from your orthodox upholding of MOnotheism of Krishna , Rk V 's attempts at Universal Religion, Hinduism as the most near candidate to such UR are seen with critical if not sarcastic eyes. But proving the need of Hinduism as the great systemic-meta-religion, unprecedented in history which is essential to reach UR and more so to provide antidote to fanatical religions usurping the human space seem near impossibility.
***
I was about to suggest-write the necessity of reading the lecture by Swami Vivekananda - The Ideal of Universal Religion, delivered by him at Hardman Hall on Sunday January 12, 1896. It was printed by Hardies and Wright. It is some 30 pages printed booklet in archives. - https://archive.org/stream/addressonvedanta00vive…
I will give the first paras from both. Why such variations, as if tutoring Vivekananda in English after his Samadhi !
1896 ed -
Wheresoever our senses reach, or our minds can imagine,
we find action and reaction of the two forces, one counteracting the other, causing the constant play of these two, the mixed phenomena that we see around us or feel in our mind. In the external world, it is expressing itself in physical matter, as attraction and repulsion, centripetal and centrifugal. In the internal world, it explains the various mixed feelings of our nature, the opposites, love and haired, good and evil. We repel some things, we attract some things. We are attracted by someone, we are repelled by someone. Many times in our lives we find without any reason whatsoever we, as it were, are attracted toward certain persons; at other times, similarly, mysteriously, we are repelled by others. This is patent to all, and the higher the field of action, the more potent, the more remarkable, are the actions of these forces. Religion is the highest plane of human thought, and herein we find that the actions of these two forces have been most marked. The intensest love that humanity has ever known has come from religion, and the most diabolical hatred that humanity has known has come from religion. The noblest words of peace that the world has ever heard have come from men on this plane, and the bitterest denunciation that the world has ever known has sprung from religious men.
we find action and reaction of the two forces, one counteracting the other, causing the constant play of these two, the mixed phenomena that we see around us or feel in our mind. In the external world, it is expressing itself in physical matter, as attraction and repulsion, centripetal and centrifugal. In the internal world, it explains the various mixed feelings of our nature, the opposites, love and haired, good and evil. We repel some things, we attract some things. We are attracted by someone, we are repelled by someone. Many times in our lives we find without any reason whatsoever we, as it were, are attracted toward certain persons; at other times, similarly, mysteriously, we are repelled by others. This is patent to all, and the higher the field of action, the more potent, the more remarkable, are the actions of these forces. Religion is the highest plane of human thought, and herein we find that the actions of these two forces have been most marked. The intensest love that humanity has ever known has come from religion, and the most diabolical hatred that humanity has known has come from religion. The noblest words of peace that the world has ever heard have come from men on this plane, and the bitterest denunciation that the world has ever known has sprung from religious men.
online now -
Wheresoever our senses reach, or whatsoever our minds imagine, we find therein the action and reaction of two forces, the one counteracting the other and causing the constant play of the mixed phenomena that we see around us, and of those which we feel in our minds. In the external world, the action of these opposite forces is expressing itself as attraction and repulsion, or as centripetal and centrifugal forces; and in the internal, as love and hatred, good and evil. We repel some things, we attract others. We are attracted by one, we are repelled by another. Many times in our lives we find that without any reason whatsoever we are, as it were, attracted towards certain persons; at other times, similarly, we are repelled by others. This is patent to all, and the higher the field of action, the more potent, the more remarkable, are the influences of these opposite forces. Religion is the highest plane of human thought and life, and herein we find that the workings of these two forces have been most marked. The intensest love that humanity has ever known has come from religion, and the most diabolical hatred that humanity has known has also come from religion. The noblest words of peace that the world has ever heard have come from men on the religious plane, and the bitterest denunciation that the world has ever known has been uttered by religious men.
-----------------
The first reads naturally and in the online version is there the same charm?
