srikanthdk71

"Sages (learned Priests) call one God by many names."

[Rigveda 1:164:46]

"na tasya pratima asti

"There is no image of Him."

[Yajurveda 32:3]5

"shudhama poapvidham"

"He is bodyless and pure."

[Yajurveda 40:8]6

"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste"

"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti."

[Yajurveda 40:9]7

Book ten, the final mandala, of the Rig Veda details the beginning of creation:

Then, neither the non-Real nor the Real existed.

There was no sky then, nor the heavens beyond it.

What was contained by what, and where, and who sheltered it?

What unfathomable depths, what cosmic ocean, existed then?

Then, neither death nor deathlessness existed;

Between day and night there was as yet no distinction.

That ONE by its own power breathlessly breathed.

In the beginning, darkness lay wrapped in darkness;

All was one undifferentiated sea.

Then, within that one undifferentiated existence,

Something arose by the heat of concentrated energy.

What arose in That in the beginning was Desire,

Which is the primal seed of mind.

The wise, having searched deep within their own hearts,

Have perceived the bond between the Real and the unreal.

They (the wise) have stretched the cord of their vision,

And they have perceived what is higher and lower:

The mighty powers are made fertile

By that ONE who is their Source . . .

That should answer the challenge of Bija and as to who is in darkness.

The monists in this thread acknowledge form - the cosmic manifestation (universal form). They do not ackowledge a purely transcendental form, which is the secret of secrets.

When the dualists in this forum said it has a form eventhough it is said Brahman is achintyam,arupam,ameyam. This is the secret.

Radhika has gone as far to say that Krsna's form is part of the astral plane - subtle mind only, and that one need to eventually leave that realm behind.

Radhika said that Krishna's form or any Loka can be perceived to any Bhakta unless he is in the realm of the astral(astral within the gross/astral without the gross). The causal entity is devoid of emotions(the sense of doership) and the soul has now become the pure conciousness which is allknowing with immense creative power.

Radhika very clearly places Sri Krsna in the realm of subtle entities, astral entities etc...next we may hear that transcendental sound is mind stuff.

She has never placed Sri Krishna in the realm of subtle entities but she has placed the experiencer within me and you and the experience of Sri Krishna as the form we believe in the subtle astral form.

I challenge where is the proof from sastra of all this speculation ,

It is simple. Read Upanishads which speaks about you. Know yourself better. You will know yourself whether it is speculation or truth.

all the monists and athiests (our dear friends in this thread) applauded as a great treatise on truth? Where is Radhika's knowledge sourced from in the above statements:deal:.

First of all how would it be to call all dualists (our dear friends in this thread) as blind believers who look for answers outside them without knowing himself and whenever they are given a breifing as Radhika did, they ask for a source. Again Source:Upanishads. Read all ways(Advaita/Dvaita/GV) and come to a conclusion.

And yes Bart...Jeffster is a deeply sincere seeker and very nice person. Making them realise without attachment is necessary for cordial relations.

Great Bishadi, you have almost written a word-to-word Bhashya to clear off all misusings by the original poster

Its better we enjoy the great Indian culture at present and forget these divisive view of the past which have been in debate for long.

Anything goes, a great culture to be with.

aham sarvasya prabhavo

mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam

budha bhava-samanvitah

 

My translation says :

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."jeffster/AMdas

The advaita translation says,Aham, I, the supreme Brahman called Vasudeva; am the prabhavah, origin; sarvasya, of all, of the whole world; sarvam, everything, the whole world of changes, consisting of continuance, destruction, action and enjoyment of the fruits of action; pravartate, moves on; mattah, owing to Me alone. Matva, realizing; iti, thus; the budhah, wise ones, the knowers of the supreme Reality; bhava-samanvitah, filled with fervour-bhava is the same as bhavana, meaning ardent longing for the supreme Reality; filled (samanvitah) with that, i.e. imbued with that; bhajante, adore; mam, Me.

The question remains 'Was Krishna referring to his gross body when he says I?'

Interesting link indeed. Thanks thehat.

Dear Jeffster,Justin,Bija,Bart just went throught all your posts in the weekend and contemplated on most of your points. To my understanding, everything has a meaning. The following are purely not based on any school of taught and are based on a rationalist thinkers analysis.

1. Why Puranas? What is its use?

A. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can understand it. It improves the creativity of any unintelligent person also. The height of a creative mind can be experienced.

2. Why Dharma Shastras/Vedas?

A. When you create something, you need time to practice and live in it. Based on the various Varnas(divided on the type of involment they can have in the work they pursue) the agnihotras/Bijaksharis can be practised. It takes a common man to the next level.

3. Why Upanishads?

A. Now the common person has gained the level of creation and sustanibility, its time for him to prepare for the laya or Moksha. Upanishads give the person the real insight to prepare him for his last rights gleefully.

So, man during his lifetime has experienced Sattva/Rajas/Tamas, Creation/Sustainibility and Destruction in the most profound way. This is what an unknown/rational person would get an idea of the Indian Dharma.

One more thing Ravindranji I would like to add. Who doesnt know Dirubhai Ambani and his dream company 'Reliance'. How many of them know it was a boon of a Aghori who was taken care by Dirubhai granted him boon of the highest of riches in the world.

'merge' is quite misleading. It would be apt to say We are God but in ignorance!

Oh yeah.

Now you are saying that God and you are one and the same. Possibly enveloped in ignorance or ego as you call it. This does not seem right. First it implies that there is a 'you' which is ego and then there is a God. Second it has another contradiction in that you and God are one. Which means God is in ignorance and has an ego!!!

 

If it is ignorance to say soul is different from the supersoul then there isn't a soul after all. Can't we just say that we all are the same ignorant God?

 

The problem is many do not know traditional Advaita but instead they study this modern feminine quantum spirituality which has no relation to real quantum science. There is no merging in traditional teaching. For the cotton piece isn't taken off from the cotton ball as you seem to indicate in this wierd parable. The term 'merge' itself denotes there are 2 entities.

 

 

What do you mean even I can experience. When you claim you have experienced ONENESS in dhyana you shouldn't be seeing me as different from you.

Read post #204 for answer.

How do you know for sure that sai babas, swami prefix+ananda's, avadhoots are God? They all have contradicted each other as to what enlightenment is. Please do not believe anyone who tells you he is God and brings up a Gold rolex watch or a gold chain out of thin air and giving it to the influential folks.

 

If they are seeing everything as ONE they should not be pulling gold chains out of thin air or claiming to be lighting candles in water. They should not be seeing anyone else. As no one else other than God (which is themselves) would exist according to non-dualism.

I have not quoted the name of the Rolex Sai Baba. I too dont believe in babas who at the end of the day does things for material gains. But you have to experience the Naga Sadhus and various other souls who do not speak to the world and quite happy with what they have and experience. Since they dont speak much, there is no question of contradiction. I do agree with you that contradictary suffix-anandas/giris/bharatis/tirthas are not sure of the path and believe that service to humanity means service to a school of taught.

A few of them may had some additional powers that normal people do not. This is found in people from other religions too. So it is not a unique feature of non-dualism.

 

Also some of these self-professed gods may be having mental disorders or a trauma masked as enlightenment. Some even get deranged overnight and the next morning experience bliss without any reason whatsoever. This can happen to a Canadian or a Ukranian or a pakistani who has not ever listened to any of the babas or ammas.

 

Whatever they are they certainly are not God. At best they are people who have some special abilities above average folks like us. No need to go to Haridwar. You may find a lot of these dudes in Nimhans.

The Kumbhamela is not something like a group of mad people coming together. To experience Kumbhamela you have to be there. But if you believe in Nimhans more than a Kumbhamela you can stay there.

Identity of the individual self and Brahman in the Advaita perspective which is the Chapter 3 of Kathopanishad

1. There are various Upanishad passages which talk of Brahman, the all pervading consciousness as being available for recognition within the intellect or the mind. The Upanishads also expressly state that Brahman is not only nondual (“advayam”) but divisionless (“nirvikalpam”). Therefore Advaita Vedanta says that the atma in you, in me, in other human beings, in the animals, the birds, the insects, the plants and, in fact, in all living beings, be they denizens of this world or the other worlds, i.e., even the atma in gods (“Devas”) and demons (“Asuras”) is one and the same entity. Brahman and Atma are not different. They are just two words for the same entity. There is only one unbroken, undivided, all pervading consciousness. ("akhanda caitanyam" or “Brahma caitanyam”) When the focus of teaching is on the all pervading aspect, it is generally referred to as Brahman and when the focus is on the original consciousness available in the jivatmas, it is generally referred to as Atma. When the focus is on the source of cidabhasa, It is referred to as Sakshi. It is the same all pervading consciousness that is available in the jivatmas. And it is this that is invoked as the unchanging, constant I, by a pratyabhinja vritti. When the minds of the jivatmas are superimposed in the ‘field’ of the all pervading consciousness, there occur reflections of consciousness in the minds. The minds have the capacity to receive the consciousness and reflect it, unlike objects like the table, just as mirrors have the capacity to receive the sunlight and reflect it. The reflected consciousness is called "cidabhasa", in Sanskrit. Without the reflected consciousness, the mind cannot perceive objects, cannot know, cannot think, cannot react, cannot recall and cannot imagine. (The qualities of different minds are different. Some are cheerful, some are morose. Some are intelligent; some are dull the comparison is that a mirror coated with dirt will throw a dull light on a dark room and a clean mirror will throw a bright light.) The mind, in turn, lends the borrowed consciousness to the sense organs and the body; that is how the mind, the sense organs and the body become sentient. It is the mind cum cidabhasa (technically called ahamkara) that expresses as the changing I.

2. Deriving consciousness from the Atma, the mind perceives the external world through the sense organs. While the awareness of the existence of oneself as a self conscious human being and as the same person, in spite of the changes which the body and mind undergo cannot be explained without the Atma, the perception of particular objects or entertainment of particular thoughts in a voluntary, selective manner cannot be explained without the mind. If I am watching the T.V. with great interest, I may be eating at the same time, but if you ask me later what I ate , I will not be able to tell you. Another proof of the capacity of the mind to select what it wants is what is known as the “cocktail effect.” And it is the mind which perceives objects of the external world, at one time, projects a dream world at another time and becomes dormant at a third time. Atma, the eternal consciousness, is there all the time, without undergoing any of these changes. If Atma alone was there and there was no mind, there would be permanent perception of everything together at the same time (which will be utter confusion) if we assume Atma to be a knower or there will be permanent non-perception, if we assume Atma to be a non-knower.

Because the Vedas say so. Now I know you are God since you experienced oneness with God and writing in this forum based on your personal feelings of that experience. I have not experienced God yet. So you may be right.

Dear Justin, nobody can claim they have experienced the ultimate coz the nature of the mind is to find the best and is always craving for more. So, I may be wrong in saying I have experienced the best and you maybe wrong in thinking that I may have experienced. Guru Nanakji said 'Jin Khoja, Tin Paayiyaan, Gehri Paani Pet' which means, As you search more, you get more and as you get more you search more like the depth of an ocean.

You may want to re-read posts where it was said the soul is trying to merge with the Consciousness. The keyword is 'merge'. If that soul was indeed the Consciousness, there is no need to merge. Like you stated, the piece of cotton is different from the barn when taken out.

The merge can happen only with like materials, like the various ornaments of Gold. The base is Gold only whether it is that or this. The properties or both are one and the same. The piece of Cotton appears different but the properties of the cotton in the piece and in the barn is one and the same.

What you are talking about is not advaita though. Advaita does not say anywhere that a soul merges with the supersoul.

Yes. Advaita says, the properties of the Atman and the Paramatman are one and the same. There is no difference as a soul and a supersoul. I think Radhika has explained how the soul is formed from the very super conciousness that pervade the universe.

Since you say you are writing out of your own experience which is verified, I have to ask you whether you experienced ONENESS with God anytime? If so you will be the first enlightened person in the world and first liberated member in this forum that I know of. Congrats!

Yes. Even you can experience it in Dhyana. The oneness is experienced in Samadhi State. That is why most of the people do not want to come out of it for years coz they are experiencing the ultimate and about enlightenment, No. There have been many like Shirdi Sai, many Avadhoots. If you want a practical experience, we shall meet at Kumbha Mela next year at Haridwar. Then probably, after seeing, you will believe. Its a promise.

[formless's given name is Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna's form is "unborn" (anti-matter)]

Very convincing.

[the meaning of Transcendental is:

"beyond/outside/above & beyond Duality" in other words:

"unbornun-manifestednon-matterself-bornthe Supreme Personality of Godhead"]

The dictionary meaning is, 'Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience'. Almost the same as you said.

You also say that it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision and perceived with our senses.

[for this question, remember the example of a "fish out of water" ~ a living being that lives only within the "grosser material atmosphere"]

Who perceived it and with what did he perceive?

Isnt it blind belief and imagination at its best

[How do you know who your father is? Ask your Saudi Arabian Mother? How do you know that China exists? How do you know that your taxi driver is going in the right direction --You have faith as you go along with the program.

To know myself, its irrelevent to know who my father is or ask my Saudi Arabian Mother and about the Taxi Driver, you know where you are going and assumes that the person is taking you to your destination. You dont sit it the cab and he knows where he is taking you.

Yes, it is possible that each and every mentor you ever had in your life has cheated you and disheartened you to feel cynical toward the Wisdom of the Sages who have revealed the "conclusion of the Veda"]

There are people who promise you something that is outside you and say that the one outside you cannot be perceived by you and you believe it.

There are people who promise to show you who you are and make you understand the purpose of life. Nobody can be your mentor. You can be your own mentor or else you may get lost in tallying your experiences with that of your mentor.

Arent you cynical? What is the conclusion part of Vedas? Upanishads. It talks about you and yourself. It is not a purana.

and dont you think you are paying for nothing?

[Do you pay for petro? Do you pay for GMF (genetically modified food)? Do you aide & abet investments & profits of multi-national Corperate conglomerate companies that sell "single-generation" farm seeds? Do you buy comodities from Chinese slave labor? Maybe? Who knows? ]

Yes. I do pay for all these. But I dont pay for Nothing.

Hmm... yes.

[so thoughtful. Full of something alright; satisfaction?]

 

Only in our hearts a beautiful perception can be formed and yes,

[Krishnamurti? Alan Watts? Osho? Christopher Colombus?]

 

there is no space and distance.

[there is "space and distance"--this is real.

It's manefest.

We 'preceive' it.

It's temporary.

It's not transcendental to

the manifest earth-water-fire-air-either-mind-intelligence-ego --whilst, the self-conscious-soul is 'transcendental' to space/time/change/names/actions/annihilation]

 

 

Why? Because everything is Him/God/Krishna/Consciousness.

[Yes. But hey buddy, God has his own pastimes that ironically you & I are not privy to nor granted entre to except by RSVP invitations]

 

 

It is just hype and glorification that has led to such beliefs.

[it is just hype and glorification that has led to your buying the style, color and BRAND NAME of underwear you have on while reading this post. I'm sure it would garner the envy of any who'd partake of your choice of bargin brand name Made-in-China commodities. (here you'd probably deny your any knowledge of where your underwear comes from --remember there are Westerners & Europeans reading this so keep your kaupins/loin-clothes confidential; just follow my logic)].

 

When you attune your-self to the Consciousness you will find its pervasiveness. That is when you will feel that "He" has made himself available.

[sorry Sailor, I just don't get the ''Cut-of-your-Jib'. "Real" is what real always was/is/shall be. "Real" is not something beyond "senses & Preceiveblilty"]

 

Look at the above quotes. Whats your goal? Why are you trying to pull my leg? Anyway, your sarcasm will not take you anywhere.

And at a microscopic scale, all form is infinite.

 

Kind regards, Bart

Infact, a nice point to ponder.

Even then each piece of cotton contributes to the Barn; each piece of cotton is distinct. We are the energies of the complete whole.

Dear Amlesh, is the Whole complete without you? When you are part of the Whole, what else?

It does have a form; the best person to explain that is Sukadev Goswami.

He did that for Parikshit, He still does that for the sincere seekers.

But definitely the answer is there.

What do you mean by sincere seekers? That he shouldnt be rational, he should belong to the Vaishnava tradition, he should be a humming bird to all the tunes that he sings, hey... come on, I repeat time and again that realization happens only to a rational mind coz only experience can convince him and not stories and fables presented colorfully.

The question beckons, since Truth is as old as Hill and one without a second; past experience of those who has seen truth is relevant and is definitely an eye opener for us.

To my knowledge, every individuals path is different. Sri Ramanuja differed from Sri Shankara and Sri Madhva differed from both. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, jainism, all are differently perceived truths. So, thinking differently is not a sin.

Finite limits (such as the circumference of a circle) are properties of theoretical geometrical objects. Real world objects do not have finite limits. But does this mean they have no form?

Whats your definition of Infinity and kindly explain the form of Infinite as per you. As per my perception, the form can be a part of infinite and not the other way round. Just like the space element. Space by itself is formless. It just pervades and defines the borders of the finite. The geometric finity can be seen here. Lets take a closed bottle. Its like me telling that space is giving you the form of a closed bottle where as you tell me space has taken the form of the bottle from within the bottle. Both are correct. When the bottle breaks, the space within the bottle merges with the space outside it and the geometric truth no longer exists that the bottle was in a certain shape. In the same way, conciousness exists within and without. The ego factor is explained by Radhika in her posts which is the cause of Births and Deaths.

Hello Ravindran and Srikant,

In speaking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, He has no material form. He is infinite and inconceivable. He is simultaneously smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest.

So the formless is given the name Sri Krishna.

If we attempt to conceptualize that His form must take up a certain amount of space, then we will miss the point.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Because in His transcendental body, there exists no earth, water, fire, air or ether (space). It transcends space and our ordinary conception of form as existing within space, and being limited or circumscribed by space or distance. His form IS special, it is transcendental and it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision, with our sense perception.

Do you know the meaning of Transcendental? When you say transcendental it means 'All in One Package'. All exists but as One single conciousness.

You also say that it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision and perceived with our senses. Isnt it blind belief and imagination at its best and dont you think you are paying for nothing?

It can only be seen in our heart of hearts. He is, is it called acintya ? Inconceivable !!!! Likewise, in the spiritual kingdom, there is no space or distance as we ordinarily conceive of it.

Hmm... yes. Only in our hearts a beautiful perception can be formed and yes, there is no space and distance. Why? Because everything is Him/God/Krishna/Consciousness.

We cannot contain the Personality of Godhead within our grasp. He is ever beyond it, ever-expanding, unlimited, but He kindly makes Himself available to those who surrender to Him in love.

It is just hype and glorification that has led to such beliefs. When you attune your-self to the Consciousness you will find its pervasiveness. That is when you will feel that "He" has made himself available.

Lets take a finite entity like the European union. Have you seen Europe? How much can you recall seeing it? Just a little bit of what you have seen, right. There is still a LOT you haven't seen. We can only describe Europe to a small extent but not everything. Similarly we can comprehend the Infinite in its Infinite forms to a small extent only. We cannot assume it does not have a form after knowing it is in so many different forms.

What makes you assume it has a form? Have you seen God? How did you believe? What logic did you apply? You may say that what we know is less, the more you come to know, you will know his eyes, limbs etc etc. The formless cannot be perceived. True. The various Kriyas(actions) of that Conciousness was explained Keeping in mind the same conciousness is within us also. Hence, the best form was explained from the perspective of us humans coz 'Man can Think in the Best possible way'. What about animals, birds.... nothing can explain. It goes on.

There is no logic in saying that since it is Infinite, it is formless. Another obvious unscientific mistake you are making is using the keyword 'space'. The Infinite is not extended in space but it is in all forms and pervades everything and being in the universe and still retains its perfectness despite the imperfect nature of the world. The Vedas themselves say this Infinite has millions of forms.

Where do I come from? Bangalore. Where is Bangalore? Karnataka. Where is Karnataka? India. Where is India? Asia. Where is Asia? World/Earth. Where is Earth? Solar System. Where is Solar System? Milky Way. Where is Milky Way? Hmm.... now the last answer is SPACE. Where is Space? Man cannot think beyond it. That was indeed unscientific but Logically practical.

Let me understand what you are writing. "The soul is different in the begining. But as it attains mukti, it merges with God and becomes ONE." So anyone can 'become' God is your opinion. They are not God in the first place until they attain mukti.

Where was it said, the Soul is different in the beginning. Read again. It said that it is a part of Infinite Conciousness. A piece of Cotton taken out from the Barn of Cotton. The piece and Barn are now appearing different. When you throw it back to the Barn, there is no difference. This is what it meant.

There goes 'Aham Brahmasmi' for a toss. 'tat tvam asi' is also out of the door by now along with the other 3 mahavakyas.

 

The only problem with the above is that no vedantic school of thought supports your theory. Is this your personal opinion? If not do you have any references?

Since you havent tried to understand the first sentence itself, your conclusions also go for a toss, out of the door etc etc.

All the things you mentioned above have a form. So how can you conclude the Infinite does not have a form?

Does Infinite have a form? If so, kindly expadite.

But then your theory says that matter and supreme consciousness are ONE. Now you are saying matter does not have consciousness of its own. Does matter also has a chance to attain mukti by which it then merges with the supreme consciousness? Whatver happened to the theory of Oneness when it comes to matter!

Truth is not anybodys Theory. It is attained by understanding and experience. Matter is infact in a Jeevanmukta State. The various manifestations of Matter itself proves it is pervaded by conciousness. It just lacks ego.

All I would add is that bhakti often appears sentimental to the untrained eye, because, after all, the bhakta externally only appears to be "speaking, sleeping, cooking, washing, etc..." But the bhakta is attempting to do all these seemingly ordinary things with full dedication to Krishna.

Yes, Bhakti not appears sentimental but may look as the height of helplessness maybe incase of Prahlada or in case of a Draupadi, in Gajendra Moksha. But real Bhakti was seen in people like Mira, a Kanankadasa, a Tulsidas, who showed Bhakti for no reason. It was reasonless and pure. They didnt gain, they just offered their love.

No misunderstanding, just misinterpretations.

 

Mystics have not broken the Rule of Silence. You see, in Mystiscm, the basic principle is "Everything that happened had happened for a good reason, everything which is happening IS for a good reason and everything which will happen WILL happen for a good reason" (Bhavagad Gita).

 

Therefore, a Mystic have no need to explain to others why something happens in such way or why someone is suffering accordingly. Therefore, the Rule of Silence should apply here.

 

However, Mystics trying to explain Spiritualism could be considered like a teacher trying to teach their students about something. Never mind Spiritualism, let try something simple like Maths. A teacher can teach how to calculate, multiply, divide etc with numbers, however, if a student have no interest or take time and effect to experiement what been taught, the teacher's effects will be wasted.

 

Personally, I believe that everyone needs to take a mystical approach if they are to achieve Moksha. There is no other way. Praying and going to temple alone will not be sufficient if the soul is asleep and the heart and the mind plays monkey-games.

Dear Sephiroth, you are indeed talking the same language as I did in my Post#14 and Post#66. Thats the reason why Ravindranji truely pointed to leave our egos and open up.

Dear All, I feel Radhika is taking on the thread on a different plane. She seems to have answers for everything.

The misunderstanding between you is just verbal, not substantial.

Regards,

K.Ravindran

Exactly Ravindranji, and Sephiroth, I apologize for any misusings on my part regarding your position which is also mine. Sorry mate, no hard feelings on personal level anywhere and thanks Ravindranji for bridging the words between myself and Sephiroth.

Whatever thoughts I may have in understanding of what Mukti, Enlightnment and Moksha maybe, IT IS FOOLISH THOUGHTS to others. Even if I have state it to the best of my ability, in the end, someone will always disagree about some part of it, thus an argument of two blind men will begin. I have yet to be enlighten, yet I will debate like the blind men I have accused you all to be. Is that not an action of an ignorant man? I shall not do such mistake.

Ok. As you see it. Now tell me why are you here then. To accuse others? What is your gain? You have something to say on the subject, say it, you have something to disagree, mean it.

It does not matter what stance you could make. In the end, all the conclusions you could achieve will be from influence of the Mind (and how it interprets the World).

Thats why in the first instance I told you that you have come to a conclusion before going through the contents of the postings here. The above quote that you have said is TRUE and exact replica of the postings myself have done(Go through my postings once again in this thread only). Anything new, definitely welcome.

Not focused, learned. And in a confused World, a learned person is always considered to be a confused person to a confused bunch.

Well, you call yourself learned. Accusing others does not make you qualify for this. I thought Man is a ever learner unless he is a realized soul. Well, if you are one of those, kindly share your experiences with these "unexperienced" souls.

Very well ... I give a free lessons (which I have learnt). Lesson one :- To achieve Moksha, one shall not be lead by another. If you want it, go and find it. Do not expect others to lead you to it.

Nobody here to my knowledge is to attain Moksha. I personally agree completely with your Point #1 that nobody can lead you to Moksha and it is for every individual to attain it based on his pursuit for it.

Lesson two :- Discard all you know, for you know nothing. What you have read in books, those are merely description of people who themselves have yet to experience Mukti. Discard all you have read, believe ONLY in God.

You exactly sound like my initial posts where I too advocated the same to all our friends here. Later, I found out that, to be blunt in words breed hatred and nobody listens to you. You will have to put your words in the most democratic way.

Lets see if you are capable of doing this two.

Sorry, I dont have to prove anything to you. I know what I am capable of. Anything new, definitely Welcome. If you read the postings here you will know its flavour and we are not turning and baking the same dough again and again.