Shashi

So you are having this understanding about the language BUT cannot you apply your incites to coming to the more sympathetic understandings of what is ShivaJi saying? Using your incites on language you might be easily seeing no contradictions between the positions of the posters as is the the way TheistJi the Cow is not seeing any. <small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-07-2002).]

My PunditJi is saying I may make my pwoint like this: If Krishna's Form is eternal and Radha is eternally with Him and within the ambit of His internal Energy the conception of Her being an effect of "transformation" runs contrary to Her eternal status as the Perennial Partner with the Lord. It is accepted, as JagatJi has confirmed, that "vikAra" is correctly translated as "transformation" (and by implication, therefore, any word which comprehends the semantics of change). Given this, the correlates of process (viz. cause and effect ) arise in the description of Radha in the above verse. Shashi MataJi is curious how the devotees reconcile the concept that Radha is a result of transformation and the fact that Radha is eternal. Harih Om Tat Sat. [This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-06-2002).]

Yes this is the similar meanings in Hindi.

I am just making joke because my saying of that "someone" expression caused the fummy comfusions before. So now I am trying to be saying "I am feeling" instead. Sometimes I mite be needing to say "IT is being my understanding" and so ons. If you were one cow what name would be likeable for the cow? Nothing beginning with the M you think? Milky perhaps but that is not spoken in Braj. Maybe Malati? What about Mamooli?

Oh I am sorry for you (that I am calling you as sensitive woman ) PAMHO. But I am definitely feeling (someone is showing me) that you are being the gentle white cow (female) being especial for one gopi devi. You are having one "M" in nagri letter hanging around your neck. Your abilities in chewing the variety of grasses and obtaining the needed essentials from same is being like your abilities in knowing ShivaJi's best meanings and rejecting his chaffs. Theist Prabhu, what means this "M" please?

MasterJi Cannot this be also being properly said as "aspect" in translation. Question in the good faith. [This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-05-2002).]

Which Bengali word is having the translation as "transformation" please?

This is being the very good referencing for our discussions here. I am agreeing with most thoroughly TheistJi. You must being a woman also for the such sensitive incite. It is appearing to me like ShivaJi is unfortunate becoming the scapegote for the doubting projections of those that are criticisng. You are liking my inputs sometimes? I am asking earlier of others but now I am asking of you - should I get the helping from learned PanditJi to trnaslate mine messages into the better English so I am not wasting everyone's times in the deep discussions?

No no PrabhuJi. My husband is telling me the official tongues of Canada are being the English and the French. So if JagatJi is writing in Engllish it is not being said as Canadian but English. He has also been writing a little Bhindi but that is being other story for winter firesides. JagatJi my husband is strongly suggesting me that I must be improviving my English and to be avoid unecessairy using my mother tongue in a forums where persons are saying in English. He is telling I must be devaloping my skill to be express the complex philosophies from my culture with the devotees from other places. Thanking you for gentleman offer to discuss in Bhindi but I am must pursue in common language of the English here. If you are having problem understanding my clumsy stiles a local hindu pundit who is knowing me and the English well is promising to assist me. He is making the one condition that nobody will be thinking that his input in what I say but only his translatery will be in there and nothing more. Also he will only assisting in the complex philosophy matters and not in day two day sayings or any jokings. Please ever let me know when his assitance you think is needed for something I am saying. I am too tired now so wishing you all good bye. The night is come.

I am not being angry with you JagatJi. FRustrating you misquoting me but I am forgetting that as you are explaining your confusion. Of course it may be somewhat my faults due to cultural differences in the expressions and the clumsy styles. But still are you able to be understanding my pwoints called "galat 1 to galat 4"? Those are on topic. I am just now cooking my husband the lunch but I am thinking he is already the fed up.

Vahan par galat nahin lekin apane gyaan par kafi GALAT ho sake! GALAT 1 that the swarup shakti (inherent potency) of Lord is operating like the prakrit (as created by external potency ). GALAT 2 that inherent potency of LOrd is being the process oriented in as much as the Gopis and the cows etc are being a the "transformation" of the inherent shakti implying the causation for one that is being ETERNAL and thereby the contradicting their non difference form LOrd and their eternal status as confirmation by shastra. GALAT 3 not fully knowing the prpoer appreciation of the scrpitural words in other language and thinking the english translation as the literal passage of the meaning. Like where is being the word transformation in the CC verse that 'raga" presenting above some time ago? GALAT 4 (this one really one subset of galat 1) that Radha Krishna = Kamala Narayan = Lakshmi Vishnu = Rukmini Krishna or = Prakrit Purush Even with the Rukmini KRishna we are having LOrd inclusive of Radha and the Gopis and Gopas. Everywhere is Krishna there is consideration of His associates being also. So Rukmini Krishna = Rukmini {Krishna & all the Gopis and deniszens of Braj} QUALIFICATION: in Dwarak, Lord as {Krishna & all the Gopis and deniszens of Braj} means {Krishna missing His beloved and the Gopis missing their beloved} So, when Quenn Rukmini Devi is relating to Lord she is relating to Lord and Radha missing each other. Are you understanding this? Radha and Krishna are not belonging to Yin/Yang paradimes as can be fitted for Kamala Narayan or Shiva Shakt etc. Radha Krishna transcending same. GALAT 5 Thinking that if someone woman is not expressing her meanings well she is idiot. PS: Someone is telling me that I should explain foreign word "GALAT" which is meaning fault or the mistake. It is also riming with Jagat [This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-04-2002).]

You are not knowing but my husband is being a native english speaker and a linguist also. He is being a little irritated with me but is still saying the SYNTAX of my sentence is correct despite the the other errors as you are saying. My sentence is most fully relevant to the discussions at the pwoint where I was making same. Husband is too busy but is commanding my sentence may have been written like: "The Lord CAN exist outside (ie without) the energies BUT the energies cannot exist outside (without) the Lord." You can be comparing this with Lord saying: "All things are in Me BUT I am not in all things." Both the transcriptions are saying the similar thing and the BUT is used likewise and correctly. Are you not ever have said something like, "It never rains but pours"? The two clause are not in the contradiction but still the but is used correctly. So JagatJI made the wrong pwoint about BUT. One is not need be one grammarian to understand meanings If you are having problem with my english towards the extent that you are not wanting me here what chance your darshan with acharyas who have the broken english? Others are understaning well enough and sometimes are laughing with me.This is communication.

Prabhuji when I am saying that "someone is telling me" it is like when the people are saying "something" is telling them or it is like the saying "it seems to me". I cannot feeling that someTHING is telling me BUT I am am preferring that as more like the someONE. Are you understaning me? It is like "mujhko laghta hai ki". Mujhko lagta hai ki there is being a simple misunderstaning here on account of your very poor grasp of the styles of my speaking the english. PAMHO.

You are appearing to be one very confused up fellow. Using your dessertation when the Lord is saying, "All things are in Me BUT I am not in all things" he is being using BUt incorreectly? When somaone is saying "It never rains BUT pours" they are being using the BUT wrongly? If it is pouring with the rain it must be raining isnt it? Still one can be saying that with the BUT because in that sense one is making the contrasting utterance. This is because the validly using of BUT is being many and varied as is being shown when you can be looking up the dictionary and how complexity is the using of this word. Ther being nothing wrong with my using BUT in my sentence so you must be fixing up your wrong quoatation of me!!!! Otherwise I must be alerting JN Dasjji.

You are going wrong like this:- - I am originally saying (posted 05-03-2002 08:19 PM) Somaone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but you are quoting me like this (posted 05-04-2002 07:40 AM ) originally posted by Shashi: Somaone is telling me that Lord cannot exist outside the energies Lord. This is being obvious the wrong. Please be fixing it up. You are the quoting me BUT you are not quoting me, see?

Jagatji this is VERY WRONG. I DID NOT SAY THIS YOU ARE SAYING ME WRONGLY!!! I was said that the LOrd CAN existing OUTSIDE the energies but you are saying I am telling that He cannot. If you are looking at my primal posting you will see you have quote me wrong. You must fix up.It is being the missrepresenting. Fix up please, I begging you.

Oh Jayaradhe we are missing you Oh Jayaradhe where are you? We are missing you Oh Jayaradhe where are you?

JagatJi I am thinking it is being to do with neither words. Jija's word is having BATING as its distinctive feeture. Are you understaning me?

I am thinking this desire to manipulate the natrual energy of the sex is being the foundation of many Tantic practices. Is this so?

Somaone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but it is the energies that cannot existing outside Lord. I am suggesting that you mite be needing to understand the Gita where Lord is saying all is in Lord but Lord is not in all. Lord is telling about his most personal aspect and not so much the Narayan level wher he is all the pervading. As the Radha and Krishna Lord is independent.

Excusiing me but this is appearing to be about the appearance of Lord and not being describing about the eternal Lord. It is saying about "cause" for Lord's appearance. In spiritual world Lord is eternally there and can not be having cause or the beginning. Lord is therre eternally in Braj with Radhika so she is not having beginning either. What to speak of cause. So it is seeming that ShivaJi's interpretatives are not being so radical as to be warranting him to be the self realised fellow to justify his raising the challenges. Please be lightening up.

From the frying PHAT into the fire.

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-02-2002).]

Ohh MasterJi May I please be attending the music recital and joining in the applausing even if I am not being the composer? If it is being OK with your learned highness my heart is thirstying to improvise an appreciation to the beautiful music. Your permit will be most pleasing.