must be seen with eyes of faith.... the difficulties which lie in the nature of things, for which the transator is not responsible: of which he must try to make the best that can be made.....in critisizing him, we have to askweather he has chosen the best method of translation: that which most surely and readily awakens in the reader's mind the ideas and feelings by the original..the aim is to reproduce meaning and power in the original,so far as constitutional differences of them allow......for here were sprinkled fires, where with the enkindled tombs all-burninggleamed,metal gleamed more fiercely hot no art requires...can it not be seen by the churches strict adherence to the letter, we transgress the ordinary rules of construction. by freedom of movement we produce better pooetry as well as better understanding...the more flexible method leads to a more satisfactory but still inadequate result:
2006-10-11 04:34:47 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Someone regards him as marvellous; another speaks of him as marvellous;and yet, after hearing,no one knows him
Some turned their inward eye to the Self and gazing at him lost sense of the world. Many others who sang his praises attained dispassion and became ever immersed in him beyond limit. Others, content to hear about him, lost consciousness of the body and became one with him through spiritual experience. Just as the currents of the rivers join the sea and return not, even if they are not merged with it (171-175), so the minds of Yogi who have become one with him do not attain rebirth through discriminating knowledge.
that's from Bhagavad Gita viz Jnaneswari
2006-10-11 05:34:48 · answer #1 · answered by jayakrishnaathmavidya 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How does one answer a rhetorical question embellished with soliloquies. Some can see,some can hear and some
do know, but for the multitude there is only faith.
2006-10-11 05:19:35 · answer #2 · answered by always a friend 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋