Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

February 23, 2007

Ram Ram

At the outset intellectuals will excuse me

if I offend them in any manner. The only motive of mine in this message is to

get ‘us intellectuals’ to start thinking.

A question that I asked myself – Do I

know English? I am quite certain that nearly all who are reading this will

answer in the affirmative. I answered similarly and then started thinking. The

answer that I got was NO. I have accepted English and now I am sure that I ‘know’

it. I can never know English without accepting it. Let me explain:

We have taken three lines put in a

particular manner to be the letter ‘A’. Why is it A and not B? Why

is it written the way it is and not in any other manner? We have never even

asked these questions and we never will. But in matters of spirituality –

in matters of God – we will keep questioning. We are not willing to

accept anything. Do we ever realize that all our education is accepted and not

known? We KNOW NOTHING. We have accepted our parents – we do not and

cannot ever know them unless they disclose themselves to us and we ACCEPT what

they say as true. This holds good for everything that we say we KNOW.

As the Gita says – we can only know our

Self, we can only accept God and we can only serve the world with our body. We

cannot know the world or God. We cannot know the world (the body is just a sample

of the world) because it is constantly changing. The Self is a part of God

(Gita 15:7) and has the identical qualities. In know the Self we must not ever think

that we know God – we just know a sample of the qualities of God.

In trying to know our Self we utilize the

instruments that we have - i.e. our body, mind, intellect and ego. Another

insight that I got was that these instruments can never know the Self. The Self

is what knows these instruments, so how can they ever know the Self. It is like

a drop of water wanting to soak up the ocean. It is Impossible. We can only

know the Self by ‘seeing’ our Self as separate from our body, mind,

intellect and ego. The ‘ego’ is also not our Self. It is our

assumed ‘Self’ – it is the Self that we think we know (like

we think we know English).

The only point that I want to stress upon

in this message is that to progress never ever think that ‘you know’.

As soon as you think ‘you know’ you have yourself stopped your own

further learning. Always be ready to learn. Everybody knows something that you

do not know. You know whatever you do from one perspective, there are other

perspectives that you have not seen. The more you (think you) know of any topic

the more you realize that you do not know.

The curtain (actually a mirror) of ‘I

know’ is put by our intellect and ego and we do not even try to see beyond

it. And what we see in the mirror (curtain) is a reflection wherein right is

left and left is right. And if you happen to be standing on the mirror, up is

down and down is up. So we all end up accepting (and thinking that we know) the

incomplete as complete, the unreal as real, the wrong as right and so on.

So put on your thinking caps and change

the full stops (of ‘I know) into commas. There is knowledge beyond

whatever you know – and in fact you actually know NOTHING – you have

Blindly Believed and Accepted whatever has been told to you.

Ram Ram

PS: Please do send your comments on the

above thoughts.

February 24, 2007

All actions, verbal, physical and mental are conditioned phenomenon.

All actions are performed by tools made up of elements of Prakriti

and the proportion in which each one is mixed up( which keeps

changing) determines the nature and the outcome of the action. Ch 14

v 10.

In Ch 14 v 19 points out who and where the self is. Several places

Self is described as non-doer CH 13 v 29, Ch 14 v 19. Patanjali in

Samadhipad says that after the Yogi has achieved CHITTAVRITTI-

NIRODHA, he is situated in his own SWARUPA (Self). Chitta AND IT'S VRITTIS etc

being part of prakriti.

Ch 18 v 40 declares that nothing, even in devloka is free of

elements of Prakriti.

Since all our thinking as to, what we know, if we know and how much we know is

via the instruments made up of prakriti, it is all

relative truth and not absolute truth. For a truth to be absolute it should be

the same all the time and in all the places. We know very well there is nothing

which is held in the same regards by everybody, not even the concept of God.

Here the defect is not in GOD but the CONCEPT of GOD. Concept of God is a

function of mind which in turn is a function of Prakriti and God itself is

beyond Prakriti. That is why, mind being the element of prakriti questions the

Concept of God.

That is why mind being an element of prakriti has come up with so

many concepts of God depending on whether that mind was conditioned

by elements in middle east ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or in

the east ( Dwait, Adwait, Buddhism, Jainism etc) and the elements of

prakriti in the form of fundamentalists of all religions keep

interacting and fighting with each other about their CONCEPT of God(

from elements of prakriti)

All that I have said here is the result of my having been conditioned by all the

spiritual and non spiritual books I have read, all the discources I have heard,

all the holy and unholy places I have visited, all the successes and failures I

have had, all the sorrows and happinesses I have had. How I have internalized

them and how they have interacted with each other in my mind. Not only in this

life but in many many lives before this one.

All the condioned phenonemena are NASHWAR ( transient )

Jag Aggarwal

, " Gita Prapann Parivar "

<sadasya wrote:

>

> Ram Ram

>

> At the outset intellectuals will excuse me if I offend them in any

manner. The only motive of mine in this message is to get 'us

intellectuals' to start thinking.

>

> A question that I asked myself - Do I know English? I am quite

certain that nearly all who are reading this will answer in the affirmative. I

answered similarly and then started thinking. The answer that I got was NO.

I have accepted English and now I am sure that I 'know' it. I can never know

English without accepting it. Let me explain:

We have taken three lines put in a particular manner to be the

letter 'A'. Why is it A and not B? Why is it written the way it is and not in

any other manner? We have never even asked these questions and we never will.

But in matters of spirituality - in matters of God - we will keep

questioning. We are not willing to accept anything. Do we ever realize that all

our education is accepted and not known? We KNOW NOTHING. We have accepted our

parents - we do not and cannot ever know them unless they disclose themselves to

us and we ACCEPT what they say as true. This holds good for everything that we

say we KNOW.

>

> As the Gita says - we can only know our Self, we can only accept

God and we can only serve the world with our body. We cannot know the world or

God. We cannot know the world (the body is just a sample of the world) because

it is constantly changing. The Self is a part of God (Gita 15:7) and has the

identical qualities. In know the Self we must not ever think that we know God -

we just know a sample of the qualities of God.

>

> In trying to know our Self we utilize the instruments that we have - i.e. our

body, mind, intellect and ego. Another insight that I got was that these

instruments can never know the Self. The Self is what knows these instruments,

so how can they ever know the Self. It is like a drop of water wanting to soak

up the ocean. It is Impossible. We can only know the Self by 'seeing' our Self

as separate from our body, mind, intellect and ego. The 'ego' is also not our

Self. It is our assumed 'Self' - it is the Self that

we think we know (like we think we know English).

>

> The only point that I want to stress upon in this message is that to progress

never ever think that 'you know'. As soon as you

think 'you know' you have yourself stopped your own further learning. Always be

ready to learn. Everybody knows something that you do not know. You know

whatever you do from one perspective, there are other perspectives that you have

not seen. The more you (think you) know of any topic the more you realize that

you do not know.

>

> The curtain (actually a mirror) of 'I know' is put by our intellect and ego

and we do not even try to see beyond it. And what we see in the mirror (curtain)

is a reflection wherein right is left and left is right.

And if you happen to be standing on the mirror, up is down and down is up. So we

all end up accepting (and thinking that we know) the incomplete as complete, the

unreal as real, the wrong as right and so on.

>

> So put on your thinking caps and change the full stops (of 'I know) into

commas. There is knowledge beyond whatever you know - and in fact you actually

know NOTHING - you have Blindly Believed and Accepted whatever has been told to

you.

>

> Ram Ram

>

> PS: Please do send your comments on the above thoughts.

February 26, 2007

In the statement " WE Know Nothing " and " We accept what others say is true " if

we mean " WE " to be individual, personal-entity, then answer is no we don't know

anything, neither can we know. We are

ourselves(product of prakriti) known by THAT which only can know.

If on the other hand, " WE " or really " I " is realized to be our Conciousness, our

True Identity, our Home, then we are all knowing, ever existing Purnata

experienced as Atman, same as Brahman!

Pratap

--- jag_aggarwal <aggarwalj wrote:

> All actions, verbal, physical and mental are

> conditioned phenomenon.

> All actions are performed by tools made up of

> elements of Prakriti

> and the proportion in which each one is mixed up(

> which keeps

> changing) determines the nature and the outcome of

> the action. Ch 14

> v 10.

>

> In Ch 14 v 19 points out who and where the self

> is. Several places

> Self is described as non-doer CH 13 v 29, Ch 14 v

> 19. Patanjali in

> Samadhipad says that after the Yogi has achieved

> CHITTAVRITTI-

> NIRODHA, he is situated in his own SWARUPA (Self).

> Chitta AND IT'S VRITTIS etc being part of prakriti.

>

> Ch 18 v 40 declares that nothing, even in devloka

> is free of

> elements of Prakriti.

>

> Since all our thinking as to, what we know, if we

> know and how much we know is via the instruments

> made up of prakriti, it is all

> relative truth and not absolute truth. For a truth

> to be absolute it should be the same all the time

> and in all the places. We know very well there is

> nothing which is held in the same regards by

> everybody, not even the concept of God. Here the

> defect is not in GOD but the CONCEPT of GOD. Concept

> of God is a function of mind which in turn is a

> function of Prakriti and God itself is beyond

> Prakriti. That is why, mind being the element of

> prakriti questions the Concept of God.

>

> That is why mind being an element of prakriti has

> come up with so

> many concepts of God depending on whether that mind

> was conditioned

> by elements in middle east ( Judaism, Christianity

> and Islam) or in

> the east ( Dwait, Adwait, Buddhism, Jainism etc) and

> the elements of

> prakriti in the form of fundamentalists of all

> religions keep

> interacting and fighting with each other about

> their CONCEPT of God(

> from elements of prakriti)

>

> All that I have said here is the result of my having

> been conditioned by all the spiritual and non

> spiritual books I have read, all the discources I

> have heard, all the holy and unholy places I have

> visited, all the successes and failures I have had,

> all the sorrows and happinesses I have had. How I

> have internalized them and how they have interacted

> with each other in my mind. Not only in this life

> but in many many lives before this one.

>

> All the condioned phenonemena are NASHWAR (

> transient )

>

> Jag Aggarwal

>

> , " Gita Prapann

> Parivar "

> <sadasya wrote:

> >

> > Ram Ram

> >

> > At the outset intellectuals will excuse me if I

> offend them in any

> manner. The only motive of mine in this message is

> to get 'us

> intellectuals' to start thinking.

> >

> > A question that I asked myself - Do I know

> English? I am quite

> certain that nearly all who are reading this will

> answer in the affirmative. I answered similarly and

> then started thinking. The answer that I got was NO.

> I have accepted English and now I am sure that I

> 'know' it. I can never know English without

> accepting it. Let me explain:

>

> We have taken three lines put in a particular manner

> to be the

> letter 'A'. Why is it A and not B? Why is it written

> the way it is and not in any other manner? We have

> never even asked these questions and we never will.

> But in matters of spirituality - in matters of God -

> we will keep

> questioning. We are not willing to accept anything.

> Do we ever realize that all our education is

> accepted and not known? We KNOW NOTHING. We have

> accepted our parents - we do not and cannot ever

> know them unless they disclose themselves to us and

> we ACCEPT what they say as true. This holds good for

> everything that we say we KNOW.

> >

> > As the Gita says - we can only know our Self, we

> can only accept

> God and we can only serve the world with our body.

> We cannot know the world or God. We cannot know the

> world (the body is just a sample of the world)

> because it is constantly changing. The Self is a

> part of God (Gita 15:7) and has the identical

> qualities. In know the Self we must not ever think

> that we know God - we just know a sample of the

> qualities of God.

> >

> > In trying to know our Self we utilize the

> instruments that we have - i.e. our body, mind,

> intellect and ego. Another insight that I got was

> that these instruments can never know the Self. The

> Self is what knows these instruments, so how can

> they ever know the Self. It is like a drop of water

> wanting to soak up the ocean. It is Impossible. We

> can only know the Self by 'seeing' our Self as

> separate from our body, mind, intellect and ego. The

> 'ego' is also not our Self. It is our assumed 'Self'

> - it is the Self that

> we think we know (like we think we know English).

> >

> > The only point that I want to stress upon in this

> message is that to progress never ever think that

> 'you know'. As soon as you

> think 'you know' you have yourself stopped your own

> further learning. Always be ready to learn.

> Everybody knows something that you do not know. You

> know whatever you do from one perspective, there are

> other perspectives that you have not seen. The more

> you (think you) know of any topic the more you

> realize that you do not know.

> >

> > The curtain (actually a mirror) of 'I know' is put

> by our intellect and ego and we do not even try to

> see beyond it. And what we see in the mirror

> (curtain) is a reflection wherein right is left and

> left is right.

> And if you happen to be standing on the mirror, up

> is down and down is up. So we all end up accepting

> (and thinking that we know) the incomplete as

> complete, the unreal as real, the wrong as right and

> so on.

> >

> > So put on your thinking caps and change the full

> stops (of 'I know) into commas. There is knowledge

> beyond whatever you know - and in fact you actually

> know NOTHING - you have Blindly Believed and

> Accepted whatever has been told to you.

> >

> > Ram Ram

> >

> > PS: Please do send your comments on the above

> thoughts.

>

______________________________\

____

Don't pick lemons.

See all the new 2007 cars at Autos.

http://autos./new_cars.html

February 28, 2007

Ram Ram

As Swamiji said – there is no ‘I’.

The ‘I’ does not and cannot know. The ‘consciousness’

also does not ‘know’.

In my humble understanding what we call or

understand to be knowledge is actually complete ignorance. What we know as knowledge

is based on the ‘I’, the intellect of the ‘I’, the mind

of the ‘I’, the consciousness of the ‘I’ – and the

‘I’ does not exist. So is not our total ‘knowledge’

actually only ignorance?

Hope the above has made sense.

Ram Ram

On Behalf Of Pratap Bhatt

26 February 2007 20:34

Re: Re: Do We

Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

In the statement " WE Know Nothing " and " We accept what

others say is true " if we mean " WE " to be individual,

personal-entity, then answer is no we don't know anything, neither can we know.

We are

ourselves(product of prakriti) known by THAT which only can know.

If on the other hand, " WE " or really " I " is realized to be

our Conciousness, our True Identity, our Home, then we are all knowing, ever

existing Purnata experienced as Atman, same as Brahman!

Pratap

February 28, 2007

Hello all, This is my humble opinion. In the beginning of the process of knowing this Soul/Atman/consciouness..we start with "I"..what is this "I"? This "I" is in all of us.. Initially in meditation we think about the things we remember or have experinced, or seen or felt like experiencing/seeing in future. Even when we desire something in future, it is limited to what we already may have seen / felt /

experienced. You know what you know, and you also know what you do not know. There is something in all of us..which atleast can say that we do not know and we know. Regards. -------- Dear Sadhakas, Namaste!

As Swamiji says there is no "I", he means "I" as an individual person, commonly known as ego. Ego exists as a thought in mind and/or sensations in body. Such a person-"I" cannot know for sure as it is itself a perceived object known with a name/form, and thus

perishable, non-existent concept.

We are talking about That I which is really Atman-Self-Brahman-Ishwara-Krishna-Absolute truth(Sat-Chit-Anand) commonly referred to as Pure Consciousness(Chit). That Consciousness is not personal belonging to individual but is That which perceives and also knows all that It perceives thru all bodies-minds. This is our true identity, It is what we ARE! Thus "I" is meant to be this pure

Consciousness(it is our experience as Conscious-Being

every moment). Of course all knowledge by an individual is Avidya/ignorance in the sense that it is relative knowledge of objects of the world (so we can live the life, playing our roles as intended by God). But That

which we truly are-"I", Consciousness, knows all objects to be Itself. "Sarvam khalu idam Brahman" This is why we can say only God(our true identity) knows Absolute truth about all! Atman-Self thus is all knowingness, rather than specific knowledge! Ultimately only non-dual Atman which is Brahman IS, KNOWS, and Blissful! AND we are THAT.

Pratap Bhatt

-------- Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak wrote: Ram Ram As Swamiji said – there is no ‘I’. The ‘I’ does not and cannot know. The ‘consciousness’ also does not ‘know’. In my humble understanding what we call or understand to be knowledge is actually complete ignorance. What we know as knowledge is based on the ‘I’, the intellect of the ‘I’, the mind of the ‘I’, the consciousness of the ‘I’ – and the ‘I’ does not exist. So is not our total ‘knowledge’ actually only ignorance? Hope the above has made sense. Ram Ram On Behalf Of Pratap Bhatt26 February 2007 20:34 Subject: Re: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything In the statement "WE Know Nothing" and "We accept what others say is true" if we mean

"WE" to be individual, personal-entity, then answer is no we don't know anything, neither can we know. We areourselves(product of prakriti) known by THAT which only can know.If on the other hand, "WE" or really "I" is realized to be our Conciousness, our True Identity, our Home, then we are all knowing, ever existing Purnata experienced as Atman, same as Brahman! Pratap

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.

March 1, 2007

Ram Ram

One sees the top of a coin and says it is Heads, the other sees it from

the other side and says it is Tails – who is correct?

Both are. It is the same coin being seen from two different sides. You have

the power to see from both sides – so it is your decision which side you want

to be in - the top or the bottom, the left or right.

On one side is God and on the other is the world (a reflection of God).

The coin is like a one sided mirror – in the centre. God sees you

but till you are seeing from the other side – you only see the ‘I’

and not God. The diagram below somewhat captures what is trying to be

expressed.

Heads C

O I N Tails

[[GOD]] [Faith

Belief || Knowledge Wealth] [WORLD]

- I

It is just our own created perspective. I came across this message and

felt that it enhances the above topic of discussion. For your reading and comments.

THE PERSPECTIVE

What makes a person rich?

One day a father of a very wealthy family took his son on a

trip to the country with the firm purpose of showing his son how poor people

live. They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be

considered a very poor family.

On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, " How was the

trip?”

" It was great, Dad. "

" Did you see how poor people live? " the father

asked.

" Oh yeah, " said the son.

" So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip? "

asked the father.

The son answered: " I saw that we have one dog and they

had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have

a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they

have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have

the whole horizon. We have a small piece of land to live on and they have

fields that go beyond our sight. We have servants who serve us, but they serve

others. We buy our food, but they grow theirs. We have walls around our

property to protect us, they have friends to protect them. "

The boy's father was speechless.

Then his son added, " Thanks, Dad, for showing me how

poor we are. "

Isn't perspective a wonderful thing? Makes you wonder

what would happen if we all gave thanks for everything we have, instead of worrying

about what we don't have.

Appreciate every single thing you have, and most of all the One who has given it all to you.

Ram Ram

March 1, 2007

Ram Ram

Thank you for your reply.

Given below are a few of thoughts and

comments based on my understanding of what is stated in the Gita and what

saints have explained. I am sorry for the excessive length of the message.

The first question that comes to my mind is ‘Who am I? Who are

we?’

The basic mistake that is made is that we

have assumed ‘I’ to be this body, mind and intellect put together.

The ‘I’ is neither the body, nor the mind, nor the intellect. So we

reach a point where we cannot ‘know’ the ‘I’ because

the only instruments that we have to know the ‘I’ are our body,

mind and intellect, and they are inferior to the ‘I’ (Gita 3:42),

and therefore cannot ‘know’ it.

To continue let us just accept this fact

that we are not the body, nor the mind, nor the intellect and then proceed.

You have categorized

‘knowledge’ into two parts – ADHYATMIK (spiritual) and

VYAVAHARIK (behavioural). In my humble submission, Knowledge has no categories.

It is complete. This categorization happens only when we commit the above first

basic mistake of assuming and then accepting the body (mind and intellect

included) to be me, mine or for me. If you have accepted firmly

that ‘you’ have no relation with the body, then where is the

question of your ‘behaviour’?

Also, ‘knowledge’ is not

something that we have to attain. Knowledge is eternal and has no beginning.

Only ignorance has a beginning. We do not have to attain knowledge, we have to

remove ignorance. What we term as ‘attainment of Knowledge’ –

be it Adhyatmik or Vyavaharik’ is actually only removal of our spiritual

ignorance (Adhyatmik Knowledge) and not doing or wanting for others that we do

not want for ourselves (Vyavaharik Knowledge).

A sadhak asked a saint ‘How do I

search for myself? When will I find myself (learn the truth)?’ The answer

the saint gave was ‘till you search you will never find yourself. Stop

searching and learning. Start seeing (what you already know) and

experiencing.’ The meaning behind these profound words are that we do not

need to search, we do not need to learn – what we want to search for is

already with us, we already know what we are wanting to learn. We do not need

to gain knowledge – we just need to remove our ignorance – and the

root ignorance is that (i) I am the Body – or (ii) I will realize

‘myself’ or ‘God’ through the Body (includes mind and

intellect).

You have mentioned that ’while we are situated in the physical world’.

Who is the ‘we’ that is situated in the physical world? Is it not the assumed ‘I’

including the Body.

What is the definition of ‘the world’? Is the world not just another name for ‘Vyavahar

(Behaviour)?’

Your statement ’physical existence is one day going to come to an end

motivates me to try to find that which is long lasting and absolute truth and

to go look for THAT’ raises the following questions:

What is it that you are using to look for that long lasting and

absolute truth? Your body, mind and

intellect – all of which is not going to last and far from the absolute

truth. So how can they ever get you there?

Who is it that wants to look and find that long lasting and absolute

truth? Is the one who is trying to

look not ‘ever lasting’? Is ‘he’ not already a part of

the absolute truth? Is it not just ‘his’ ignorance that is stopping

him from realizing the absolute truth?

What is the purpose/goal of your so looking? This is the other basic mistake that is made by nearly all.

The purpose and goal of most people is for ‘mental peace’

‘physical comforts’ etc. and the reason why they want these things

usually because they have experienced a lot of pain in the world. They link

their mental peace to physical comforts. Mental peace relates to the mind and

physical comforts relate to the body. So at the end of the day our goal and the

purpose why we want to find ‘everlasting absolute truth and peace’

is only ‘OUR BODY’.

The means naturally merge into the end and

can never go beyond it. The means that we have are only parts of the Body and

our end motive/goal is our Body, so how can we ever transcend that and realize

the Reality/Truth? We ’continue to strive

to get to the transcendental reality’ but use our body to strive towards it. Also, in my humble

understanding none of us even know the definition of ‘transcendental

reality’. This is a term that we have heard and learnt from saints. It is

beyond description. If describable, it would not be transcendental. No

‘one’ reaches that reality. In that situation there is no ‘I’,

there is no ‘Knower’, there is no ‘Doer’ there is only

‘Knowledge’, there is only ‘Love’.

Your take home line ’We are in the world (physical) but not of the

world’ is very good indeed. We should go to the

depth of it and not just take it at face value. Once we go to the depth, realization

of the fact that ‘we’ are not ‘in’ the world, we have just assumed ourselves to be in the world will dawn on us.

I do not know or understand the complete

truth of the statement that the world is MITHYA (‘False’), TRANSIENT AND

THEREFORE FALSE in Adhyatmic sense. I explain my views below.

My understanding is that the world

(including body) is not ‘False or Transient’. It is our assumed

relation with the world (including body) that is false and transient. It is

false only for those people who have assumed either the world or their body to

be existing independently or who have assumed their body to be separate from

the world.

From a spiritual perspective it is said to

be False and Transient because we have assumed or accepted the world and body

to be Independent of each

other and independently existent. It is only to remove these assumptions and acceptances

that the spiritual masters have said that the world is false. They (body and

world) cannot and do not exist independently and are not independent of each

other. Both are made up of the same five elements.

Similarly, the ‘I’ also does

not and cannot exist independently. The ‘I’ is just an assumed

entity created by the mind and intellect – it actually has no existence.

Both the world and ‘I’ have ‘God’ as their base, which

is why they seem Real and Independent.

In the end the only knowledge is that:

ALL IS GOD. Vasudev Sarvamiti (Gita 7:19). If you gain this knowledge,

there is nothing else to know, do or attain. There is no greater gain and no

loss or pain that can ever effect you (Gita 6:22) – the only verse which

tests your situation (stithi).

So my humble request:

To all ‘intellectuals’ – who want to Know:

Know for a fact that all is GOD,

Know for a fact that only He is in the Core

of Your Existence.

To the ‘worldly’ - who want to Do:

Whatever you do, do only for others,

Do only that, which you want to be done to

you,

Do only what you can comfortably do with

the body that you have received,

Do only what you think will please God.

And to put it in the negative:

Do not do or want for others what you do

not want done to you,

Do not behave the way you do not want

others to behave.

To all ‘devotees’ – who want to Accept:

Accept the fact that God is Everywhere,

Accept the fact that God is at all Times,

Accept the fact that Only God is Your Very

Own.

Have full faith and Belief in the above.

Let us stop searching and

start seeing, let us stop learning and start experiencing, let us stop living

and start loving.

Ram Ram

AGGARWAL J

[aggarwalj]

02 March 2007 01:19

Ram Krishna

Re: Re: Do We

Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

There is ADHYATMIC knowledge and there is VYAVAHARIC

knowledge. Vyavaharic is considered false by those who are into Adhyatmic

knowledge. In the long run that is true because sooner or later everyone

in the physical world perishes. But while we are situated in the physical world we

can not ignore Vyavaharic gyan even though we feel it is false. For

example if I am walking on a street and a truck is racing towards me I won't

say " VASUDEVA SARVAM ITI " and not get out of its way. I definitely

will. That is where the Vyavaharic gyan is valid and necessary. ( in the

vyavaharic world ). But knowing that the physical existence is one day going to come to an end

motivates me to try to find that which is long lasting and absolute truth

and to go look for THAT. " Tatah padam

tatparimargitavyam yasmin gata na nivartante bhuyah " . Although there

are examples of saints who transcend the physical even while living in this

physical world but for most of us whether we like it or not the physical

reality ( even though relative ) is still necessary and something

we have to live with but at the same time we need to continue to strive to get to the transcendental reality.

Take home message: We are in the

world (physical) but not of the world.

Do not get too comfortable in the world, it is all MITHYA, TRANSIENT AND THEREFOR FALSE in Adhyatmic sense.

Humbly submitted

Jag Aggarwal

March 2, 2007

Ram Ram

The only disconnect that appears is in the

lines:

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or

whatever we

call THAT is not some thing, rather it is

names given

to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,

feelings of

Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the

world.

With my limited knowledge I cannot agree

that ‘God’ is not something – God is certainly something and also

nothing. I hope you understand. What I have understood from the Gita is that

God’s form is ‘Existence’ – not

‘Consciousness’. Consciousness may not include Existence, but

Existence includes and also excludes Consciousness.

Experience is above Consciousness and

Existence is above Experience.

Similarly, our Reality is also not

Consciousness but Existence (I use " I " , as our reality which is all

perceiving

Consciousness). We are aware of our consciousness only through our

‘mind/intellect’. Hence if we take our reality to be

‘Consciousness’ we will never be able to transcend it.

The difference in what you have written and

what I have understood lies in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love).

Both are the same so far as they both free you from the bondage of the world

and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this

message as I feel it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed

knowledge) in the minds of most readers. Both views are correct.

As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any

one path primarily (based on his interest) and not have any ill feelings

towards the other. If he does this all paths will merge in the end.

Please correct if my understanding is

wrong. Would appreciate your comments.

I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri

Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – ‘The one

who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on

who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not

realized (attained God).’

On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a

question that if everything is just consciousness, who experiences the

consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that

stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the experience

– which is always existing.

Something to illustrate the point:

Drag your mouse from ‘O’ to

‘I’ – you will understand what I mean.

O Even though you

cannot see Him God IS HERE I

It is only that we cannot/or have not seen

Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now.

Ram Ram

Pratap Bhatt [pratapbhatt]

03 March 2007 08:57

Gita Prapann Parivar

RE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted

Everything

Dear Sadhak:

I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness,

not identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we

allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world

we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This

is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory,

right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of Consciousness

perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness. This

Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time perceives Itself thru

all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost

in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings

which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).

As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are

THAT experiencially, right?

Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she

never existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience

of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet

he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual " I " just to

play the role(Lila).

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not

some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,

feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

You may want to comment if you see some disconnect.

Thank you..Pratap

March 2, 2007

I thank u very much the way it is presented (below). Fathers perception and sons

perfection are diagnoally opposite. That is why in Gita Lord Krishna says that

the capacity to perceive is God himself. Unless His blessings are there, one

will not be able to perceive and even if one perceives, it will not be properly

directed. Only realized souls perceive things in proper perspective (or through

the grace of God - moderator addition).

I once again express my deep appreciation for an excellent

presentation.

, " Ram Krishna " <rkp wrote:

>

> Ram Ram

>

> One sees the top of a coin and says it is Heads, the other sees it

from the

> other side and says it is Tails - who is correct?

>

> Both are. It is the same coin being seen from two different sides.

You have

> the power to see from both sides - so it is your decision which

side you

> want to be in - the top or the bottom, the left or right.

>

> On one side is God and on the other is the world (a reflection of

God).

>

> The coin is like a one sided mirror - in the centre. God sees you

but till

> you are seeing from the other side - you only see the 'I' and not

God. The

> diagram below somewhat captures what is trying to be expressed.

>

> Heads C O I N

> Tails

>

> [[GOD]] [Faith Belief || Knowledge Wealth] [WORLD] - I

>

> It is just our own created perspective. I came across this message

and felt

> that it enhances the above topic of discussion. For your reading

and

> comments.

>

> THE PERSPECTIVE

>

> What makes a person rich?

>

> One day a father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip

to the

> country with the firm purpose of showing his son how poor people

live. They

> spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be

considered a

> very poor family.

>

> On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, " How

was the

> trip? "

>

> " It was great, Dad. "

>

> " Did you see how poor people live? " the father asked.

>

> " Oh yeah, " said the son.

>

> " So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip? " asked the father.

>

> The son answered: " I saw that we have one dog and they had four.

We have a

> pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a

creek that has

> no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the

stars at

> night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole

horizon.

> We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that

go beyond

> our sight. We have servants who serve us, but they serve others.

We buy our

> food, but they grow theirs. We have walls around our property to

protect us,

> they have friends to protect them. "

>

> The boy's father was speechless.

>

> Then his son added, " Thanks, Dad, for showing me how poor we are. "

>

> Isn't perspective a wonderful thing? Makes you wonder what would

happen if

> we all gave thanks for everything we have, instead of worrying

about what we

> don't have.

>

> Appreciate every single thing you have, and most of all the One

who has

> given it all to you.

>

> Ram Ram

>

March 3, 2007

Dear Sadhakji, Ram Ram:

What I mean by "God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing ......" is that it is not an object of mind, God cannot be known as an object of perception like all other mind experiences are. God cannot be known by mind including intellect, but we know for sure there is reality out there which is absolute existence; sentients and insentients(saguna brahman). We know because we are conscious of It. In otherwords we experience being conscious of whatever it is(what we claim to know is not important in this context). Existence is Consciousness and Consciousness is Exitence. THis is the greatest message of Upanishad: Sat is Chit and Chit is Sat. It is one experience, not even two aspects or attributes. The same is Bliss experience. We say Brahman to mean Sat-Chit-Ananda. (unfortunately bliss experience is lost in nama-rupa, names and forms, characteristics of world).

Let us ask the question: Is it possible to experience consciousness separate from existence or existence without being conscious of it? To be conscious is to exist and to exist is to be conscious. Let us check our own experience in this moment. E. G. When I say flower, I mean there is(exists) a consciousness(knowing) of some object we call flower!

Generally in oue vedic liturature Brahman is translated as Consciousness implying Existence at the same time. It has to be our reality as one can never ever deny Consciousness(knowing) of Existence of anything or abscence of anything at any moment. What is known can be denied or disputed, but not knowingness. "Not knowing something" is also really knowing, otherwise we cannot say "I don't know".

Can we experience anything at all in itself? Obviously not. We know only through thoughts/feelings which is an experience of being conscious of that thing which is existence first and then names/forms. All our perceptions are conceptualized as objects of the world. But the Perceiver is almighty GOD, never changing, always is! It is the only reality of us, the rest is in flux, ever changing. I would even venture to say from the beginning, not a thing exists, because we never experience "thing in itself", we only can be conscious of presence of object or absence of object.

Our problem may be that we take this consciousness to be personal experience by mind-intellect. Not true. As a matter of fact the world and body are in mind and mind itself is in the Cosnciousness. This is because we know body only when we perceive it, we know mind when we perceive "restlessness or peacefulness of mind." This Consciousness-Existence is not personal(this is the trip we have to make as Upanishad says Atman is Brahman) but rather universal, impersonal. Even in the dream and deep sleep, the Consciousness is there while mind and body are absent as verified by knowing dreams and deep sleep upon waking up.

Finally you are right when you quoted the saint saying(paraphrasing) realization or not realization or not knowing whether one is realized or not, all are sign of ignorance. It is experience of peace, beauty, compassion, love, harmony, service, humility that we see from sages and saints and then we say they are realized souls!

Please forgive me I had to write long. Would like to hear. Sadar namaskar!

, "Gita Prapann Parivar" <sadhak wrote:>> Ram Ram> > > > The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:> > Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we> > call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given> > to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of> > Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.> > > > With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that 'God' is not something - God> is certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have> understood from the Gita is that God's form is 'Existence' - not> 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence> includes and also excludes Consciousness. > > > > Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience.> > > > Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but Existence (I use "I",> as our reality which is all perceiving> > Consciousness). We are aware of our consciousness only through our> 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will> never be able to transcend it. > > > > The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in> the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far> as they both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not> elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel> it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the> minds of most readers. Both views are correct. > > > > As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on> his interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does> this all paths will merge in the end.> > > > Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments.> > > > I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder> of Gita Press). He said - 'The one who says I have realized (attained God),> the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or> not - all three have not realized (attained God).' > > > > On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a question that if everything is> just consciousness, who experiences the consciousness - the Sat, the Chit,> the Anand? He answered - at that stage no one experiences it, there is no> experiencer, only the experience - which is always existing.> > > > Something to illustrate the point:> > > > Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' - you will understand what I mean.> > > > O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I> > > > It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS -> Right Here and Now.> > > > Ram Ram> > > > > Pratap Bhatt [pratapbhatt] > 03 March 2007 08:57> Gita Prapann Parivar> RE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted> Everything> > > > Dear Sadhak: > > > > I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not> identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we> allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and> world we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as> individual. This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these> lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot> exist independently of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be of> the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at> the same time perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person gives> them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in the objects. I mean perceived> world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the> nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).> > > > As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT> experiencially, right?> > > > Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never> existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience of> the WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet> he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual "I" just to play the> role(Lila). > > > > Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some> thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,> feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. > > > > You may want to comment if you see some disconnect.> > > > Thank you..Pratap>

March 3, 2007

Ram Ram I am getting confused regarding following paragraph. "I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – ‘The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized

(attained God).’ " If no one among the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God? Kindly explain. Manjula Goyal Gita

Prapann Parivar <sadhak wrote: Ram Ram The only disconnect that appears is in the lines: Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. With my limited knowledge I

cannot agree that ‘God’ is not something – God is certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have understood from the Gita is that God’s form is ‘Existence’ – not ‘Consciousness’. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence includes and also excludes Consciousness. Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience. Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but

Existence (I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness). We are aware of our consciousness only through our ‘mind/intellect’. Hence if we take our reality to be ‘Consciousness’ we will never be able to transcend it. The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far as

they both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers. Both views are correct. As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on his interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this all paths will merge in the end. Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments. I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – ‘The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).’ On a similar note, someone asked

Swamiji a question that if everything is just consciousness, who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the experience – which is always existing. Something to illustrate the point: Drag your mouse from ‘O’ to ‘I’ – you will understand what I mean. O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now. Ram Ram Pratap Bhatt [pratapbhatt ] 03 March 2007 08:57Gita Prapann ParivarRE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything Dear Sadhak: I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat)

at the same time perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti). As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially, right? Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience of the

WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual "I" just to play the role(Lila). Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. You may want to comment if you see some disconnect. Thank you..Pratap

Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know.

March 5, 2007

Om Om Everyone,

I simply want to know, why this creation was manifested?

Dhananjaya Agrawal

On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki wrote:

Ram Ram

I am getting confused regarding following paragraph.

" I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).' "

If no one among the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God? Kindly explain.

Manjula Goyal

Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv

ar.org> wrote:

Ram Ram

The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we

call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given

to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of

Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that 'God' is not something – God is certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have understood from the Gita is that God's form is 'Existence' – not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence includes and also excludes Consciousness.

Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience.

Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but Existence (I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving

Consciousness)

.. We are aware of our consciousness only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be able to transcend it.

The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far as they both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers. Both views are correct.

As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on his interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this all paths will merge in the end.

Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments.

I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).'

On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a question that if everything is just consciousness, who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the experience – which is always existing.

Something to illustrate the point:

Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will understand what I mean.

O

Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE

I

It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now.

Ram Ram

Pratap Bhatt [

pratapbhatt ] 03 March 2007 08:57Gita Prapann ParivarRE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

Dear Sadhak:

I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).

As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially, right?

Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual " I " just to play the role(Lila).

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

You may want to comment if you see some disconnect.

Thank you..Pratap

Have a burning question? Go to

Answers and get answers from real people who know.

March 5, 2007

Dear Sadhakji, Namaste.

In a paintig, can a painted object such as tree or

river or cow ask the Painter to demand an answer why

it is painted? In a dream can dream characters know

why they are being dreamed? If there are answers, they

are merely to satisfy curious minds.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask how would we

live in a meaningful way given the creation is what it

is?

Ram Ram.. Pratap

--- Dhananjaya Agrawal <dhananjayaagrawal

wrote:

> Om Om Everyone,

>

> I simply want to know, why this creation was

> manifested?

>

> Dhananjaya Agrawal

>

> On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki

> wrote:

> >

> > Ram Ram

> >

> > I am getting confused regarding following

> paragraph.

> >

> > " I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri

> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the

> > founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who

> says I have realized

> > (attained God), the one who says I have not, the

> on who says I do not know

> > whether I have or not – all three have not

> realized (attained God).' "

> >

> > If no one among the three groups has realized God,

> then who has realized

> > God? Kindly explain.

> >

> > Manjula Goyal

> >

> > *Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak*

> wrote:

> >

> > Ram Ram

> > The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:

> > Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or

> whatever we

> > call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names

> given

> > to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,

> feelings of

> > Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

> > With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that

> 'God' is not something –

> > God is certainly something and also nothing. I

> hope you understand. What I

> > have understood from the Gita is that God's form

> is 'Existence' – not

> > 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may not include

> Existence, but Existence

> > includes and also excludes Consciousness.

> > Experience is above Consciousness and Existence

> is above Experience.

> > Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness

> but Existence (I use

> > " I " , as *our reality which is all perceiving*

> > *Consciousness*). We are aware of our

> consciousness only through our

> > 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take our reality to

> be 'Consciousness' we will

> > never be able to transcend it.

> > The difference in what you have written and what

> I have understood lies

> > in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti

> (love). Both are the same so

> > far as they both free you from the bondage of the

> world and sorrows. I am

> > not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and

> Bhakti in this message as I

> > feel it will add to confusion (and also

> confirmation of assumed knowledge)

> > in the minds of most readers. Both views are

> correct.

> > As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any

> one path primarily (based

> > on his interest) and not have any ill feelings

> towards the other. If he does

> > this all paths will merge in the end.

> > Please correct if my understanding is wrong.

> Would appreciate your

> > comments.

> > I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri

> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the

> > founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who

> says I have realized

> > (attained God), the one who says I have not, the

> on who says I do not know

> > whether I have or not – all three have not

> realized (attained God).'

> > On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a

> question that if everything is

> > just consciousness, who experiences the

> consciousness – the Sat, the Chit,

> > the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one

> experiences it, there is no

> > experiencer, only the experience – which is always

> existing.

> > Something to illustrate the point:

> > Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will

> understand what I mean.

> > O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I

> > It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him

> yet, but He certainly IS –

> > Right Here and Now.

> > Ram Ram

> >

> > Pratap Bhatt [pratapbhatt]

> > 03 March 2007 08:57

> > Gita Prapann Parivar

> > RE: Re: Do We Know Anything

> or Have We Blindly

> > Accepted Everything

> > Dear Sadhak:

> > I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving

> Consciousness, not

> > identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in

> space-time. Everything we

> > allegedly know is perceived objects including our

> body-mind organism and

> > world we assume out there. We are the ultimate

> Subject, again not as

> > individual. This is our experience as Conscious

> Being even as we read these

> > lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the

> world, mind and body cannot

> > exist independently of Consciousness perceiving

> and therefore has to be of

> > the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness

> (Chit) which is Being (sat) at

> > the same time perceives Itself thru all

> boodies/minds, only person gives

> > them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in the

> objects. I mean perceived

> > world by our mind is of the nature of

> thoughts/feelings which is of the

> > nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).

> > As you say there is only God which I say

> Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT

> > experiencially, right?

> > Upon realization with the help of this deep

> understanding-that he/she

> > never existed as individual, never can and never

> will, then there is

> > experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no

> enjoyership, no individuality

> > either, and yet he/she functions in the world

> seemingly as individual " I "

> > just to play the role(Lila).

> > Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or

> whatever we call THAT is not

> > some thing, rather it is names given to THE

> experiences of Clarity in the

> > mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and

> Beauty in the world.

> > You may want to comment if you see some

> disconnect.

> > Thank you..Pratap

March 5, 2007

Ram Ram

I short it means that on realization of

God, the one who realizes does not remain. His existence ends. He merges into

God – like the waves with the ocean.

Ram Ram

On Behalf Of Manjula Goel

04 March 2007 10:51

RE: Re: Do We

Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

Ram Ram

I am

getting confused regarding following paragraph.

" I always

remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita

Press). He said – ‘The one who says I have realized (attained God),

the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or

not – all three have not realized (attained God).’ "

If no one among

the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God? Kindly explain.

Manjula Goyal

March 5, 2007

Love and Love alone....

The one who has realised will not make any of the three statements. He just lives in it. That is all.

Love and Love alone....

On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki wrote:

Ram Ram

I am getting confused regarding following paragraph.

" I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).' "

If no one among the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God? Kindly explain.

Manjula Goyal

Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv

ar.org> wrote:

Ram Ram

The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we

call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given

to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of

Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that 'God' is not something – God is certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have understood from the Gita is that God's form is 'Existence' – not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence includes and also excludes Consciousness.

Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience.

Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but Existence (I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving

Consciousness)

.. We are aware of our consciousness only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be able to transcend it.

The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far as they both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers. Both views are correct.

As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on his interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this all paths will merge in the end.

Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments.

I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).'

On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a question that if everything is just consciousness, who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the experience – which is always existing.

Something to illustrate the point:

Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will understand what I mean.

O

Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE

I

It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now.

Ram Ram

Pratap Bhatt [

pratapbhatt ] 03 March 2007 08:57Gita Prapann ParivarRE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

Dear Sadhak:

I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).

As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially, right?

Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual " I " just to play the role(Lila).

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

You may want to comment if you see some disconnect.

Thank you..Pratap

Have a burning question? Go to

Answers and get answers from real people who know.

-- Paritala Gopi Krishna

March 5, 2007

Love and Love alone.... In the words of Swami Sivananda, it is an ATI PRASNA, which means, it does not have an answer. Unless you realise yourself, you will not get an answer and even if any one tries to give an answer, it will not satisfy you. Love and Love alone.... P. Gopi KrishnaDhananjaya Agrawal <dhananjayaagrawal wrote: Om Om Everyone, I simply want to know, why this creation was manifested? Dhananjaya Agrawal On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki > wrote: Ram Ram I am getting confused regarding following paragraph. "I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).' " If no one among the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God? Kindly explain. Manjula

Goyal Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv ar.org> wrote: Ram Ram The only disconnect that appears is in the lines: Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we

call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that 'God' is not something – God is certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have understood from the Gita is that God's form is 'Existence' – not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence

includes and also excludes Consciousness. Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience. Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but Existence (I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness) . We

are aware of our consciousness only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be able to transcend it. The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far as they both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers. Both views are correct. As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on his interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this all paths will merge in the end. Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments. I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I

have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).' On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a question that if everything is just consciousness, who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the experience – which is always existing. Something to illustrate the point: Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will understand what I mean. O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now. Ram Ram Pratap Bhatt [ pratapbhatt ] 03 March 2007 08:57Gita Prapann ParivarRE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything Dear Sadhak: I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets

lost in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti). As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially, right? Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual "I" just to play the role(Lila). Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. You may want to comment if you see some disconnect. Thank you..Pratap Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know. P. Gopi Krishna

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

March 6, 2007

Humble pranams, This is a very beautiful concept that is originally found in the Kena Upanishad. The translation is as follows 2.2 The disciple said: I do not think I know It(Brahman) well, nor do I think I do not know It. He among us who knows the meaning of "Neither do I not know, nor do I know"—knows Brahman. 2.3 He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It; he by whom It is known, knows It not. It is not known by those who know It; It is known by those who do not know It. Basically the knowledge "aham brahmasmi" is the knowledge about one's true self, it is a knowledge of right self-identity. As even this knowledge arises, the false superimposition called the Ego vanishes. In other words, self-knowledge is not knowledge

of something, like knowledge of a pot or knowledge of a flower, but is a subjective knowledge of the real "I" - sat-chit-ananda. So if i say i know brahman, it means that there are two entities - i and brahman. that how can i and brahman be the same? only when it is realized firmly as one's own swarupa and not as a "thing" to be known can one says "he knows" or "he is realized" Per Revered Goyandka-ji. The one who does not know whether he knows or does not know is clearly ignorant. He has no clue. The one who says he is realized also does not know because there was never a time when he was not realized. Bondage and its release are both fictitious imposters - the ego, which meets its death upon realization. So there is no "i"-sense that will say i am realized. The one who says "i am not realized" is ascribing a reality to his bondage. Under the firm sway of avidya, he is sure that he does not know nor does he possess the means to know the Divine which is ever his true nature, right at this very moment. Trust this clarifies. Hari OM Shyam BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> Love and Love alone.... The one who has realised will not make any of the three statements. He just lives in it. That is all. Love and Love alone.... On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki > wrote: Ram Ram I am getting confused

regarding following paragraph. "I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).' " If no one among the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God? Kindly explain. Manjula Goyal Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv ar.org> wrote: Ram Ram The only disconnect that appears

is in the lines: Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that 'God' is not something – God is

certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have understood from the Gita is that God's form is 'Existence' – not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence includes and also excludes Consciousness. Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience. Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but Existence (I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness) . We are aware of our consciousness only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be able to transcend it. The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in the concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far as they both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the minds of

most readers. Both views are correct. As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on his interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this all paths will merge in the end. Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments. I

always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all three have not realized (attained God).' On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a question that if everything is just consciousness, who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the experience – which is always existing. Something to illustrate the point: Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will understand what I mean. O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now. Ram Ram Pratap Bhatt [ pratapbhatt ] 03 March 2007

08:57Gita Prapann ParivarRE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything Dear Sadhak: I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not identified with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we allegedly know is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of Consciousness

perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti). As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially, right? Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is

experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she functions in the world seemingly as individual "I" just to play the role(Lila). Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world. You may want to comment if you see some disconnect. Thank

you..Pratap Have a burning question? Go to Answers and get answers from real people who know. -- Paritala Gopi Krishna

It's here! Your new message!Get

new email alerts with the free Toolbar.

March 8, 2007

Sadar Pranams:

Very nicely explained. Even when one reads these lines one is bound to get a

glimpse of one's true nature being Sat-Chit-Ananda! Nothing to do, nowhere to

go, just BE.......what I already am!

When sadhana is undertaken initially by " I " , it will dawn on one that really it

is the truth of what " I " is, attracts/directs the Sadhaka to realization, not

" I " as it just doesn't exist. Guru is the form/channel

Truth uses!

Namaste....Pratap

--- Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

> Humble pranams,

> This is a very beautiful concept that is

> originally found in the Kena Upanishad.

> The translation is as follows

>

> 2.2 The disciple said: I do not think I know

> It(Brahman) well, nor do I think I do not know It.

> He among us who knows the meaning of " Neither do I

> not know, nor do I know " —knows Brahman.

> 2.3 He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It;

> he by whom It is known, knows It not. It is not

> known by those who know It; It is known by those who

> do not know It.

>

> Basically the knowledge " aham brahmasmi " is the

> knowledge about one's true self, it is a knowledge

> of right self-identity. As even this knowledge

> arises, the false superimposition called the Ego

> vanishes.

> In other words, self-knowledge is not knowledge of

> something, like knowledge of a pot or knowledge of a

> flower, but is a subjective knowledge of the real

> " I " - sat-chit-ananda.

> So if i say i know brahman, it means that there

> are two entities - i and brahman. that how can i and

> brahman be the same? only when it is realized firmy

> as one's own swarupa and not as a " thing " to be

> known can one says " he knows " or " he is realized "

>

> Now let us take the three groups mentioned by the

> revered Giyandka-ji.

> The one who does not know whether he knows or does

> not know is clearly ignorant of what this knowledge

> is. If you ask him do you know who you are or who is

> Ishwara he has no clue.

>

> The one who says he is realized also does not

> know. This is because for a reality there was never

> a time when he was not realized. Bondage and its

> release are both fictitious from his standpoint -

> the one who was bound and the one who obtained

> release were both the very same imposter - the ego,

> which meets its death upon realization. So there is

> no " i " -sense that will say i am realized.

>

> The one who says " i am not realized " is ascribing

> a reality to his bondage. Under the firm sway of

> avidya, he is sure that he does not know nor does he

> possess the means to know the Divine which is ever

> his true nature, right at this very moment.

>

> Trust this clarifies.

> Hari OM

> Shyam

>

> Love and Love alone....

>

> The one who has realised will not make any of the

> three statements. He just lives in it. That is all.

>

> Love and Love alone....

>

> On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki

> wrote: Ram Ram

>

> I am getting confused regarding following

> paragraph.

>

> " I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri

> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He

> said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained

> God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I

> do not know whether I have or not – all three have

> not realized (attained God).' "

>

> If no one among the three groups has realized God,

> then who has realized God? Kindly explain.

>

> Manjula Goyal

>

> Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv ar.org>

> wrote: Ram Ram

>

> The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:

> Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or

> whatever we

> call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names

> given

> to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,

> feelings of

> Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

>

> With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that

> 'God' is not something – God is certainly something

> and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have

> understood from the Gita is that God's form is

> 'Existence' – not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may

> not include Existence, but Existence includes and

> also excludes Consciousness.

>

> Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is

> above Experience.

>

> Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness

> but Existence (I use " I " , as our reality which is

> all perceiving

> Consciousness) . We are aware of our consciousness

> only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take

> our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be

> able to transcend it.

>

> The difference in what you have written and what I

> have understood lies in the concept of Gyan

> (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so

> far as they both free you from the bondage of the

> world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this

> topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel

> it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of

> assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers.

> Both views are correct.

>

> As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one

> path primarily (based on his interest) and not have

> any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this

> all paths will merge in the end.

>

> Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would

> appreciate your comments.

>

> I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri

> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He

> said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained

> God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I

> do not know whether I have or not – all three have

> not realized (attained God).'

>

> On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a

> question that if everything is just consciousness,

> who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the

> Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one

> experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the

> experience – which is always existing.

>

> Something to illustrate the point:

>

> Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will

> understand what I mean.

>

> O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I

>

> It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him

> yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now.

>

> Ram Ram

>

> Pratap Bhatt [ pratapbhatt]

> 03 March 2007 08:57

> Gita Prapann Parivar

> RE: Re: Do We Know Anything or

> Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

>

> Dear Sadhak:

>

> I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving

> Consciousness, not identified with body-mind,

> thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we

> allegedly know is perceived objects including our

> body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We

> are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual.

> This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we

> read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say,

> the world, mind and body cannot exist independently

> of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be

> of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness

> (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time

> perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person

> gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in

> the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is

> of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the

> nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).

>

> As you say there is only God which I say

> Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially,

> right?

>

> Upon realization with the help of this deep

> understanding-that he/she never existed as

> individual, never can and never will, then there is

> experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no

> enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she

> functions in the world seemingly as individual " I "

> just to play the role(Lila).

>

> Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or

> whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it

> is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the

> mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty

> in the world.

>

> You may want to comment if you see some

> disconnect.

>

> Thank you..Pratap

>

> Have a burning question? Go to Answers and

> get answers from real people who know.

>

--

> Paritala Gopi Krishna

>

> It's here! Your new message!

> Get new email alerts with the free Toolbar.

______________________________\

____

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast

with the Search weather shortcut.

http://tools.search./shortcuts/#loc_weather

March 12, 2007

Dear Sadhaks, I humbly submit that we are having quiet a bit of speculation and imagination about God in this particular discussion. This is complicating the whole concept, which may not be digestable for all. A simple trust in God, call it Lord, Krsna, Ram, Allah, whatever...is all that is necessary. Any further debate on forms of God is only from an intellectual angle, which may be contaminated with ego. SundeepPratap Bhatt <pratapbhatt wrote: Sadar Pranams:Very nicely explained. Even when one reads these lines one is bound to get a glimpse of one's true nature being Sat-Chit-Ananda! Nothing to do, nowhere to go, just BE.......what I already am!When sadhana is undertaken initially by "I", it will dawn on one that really it is the truth of what "I" is, attracts/directs the Sadhaka to realization, not "I" as it just doesn't exist. Guru is the form/channelTruth uses!Namaste....Pratap--- Shyam <shyam_md > wrote:> Humble pranams,> This is a very beautiful concept that is> originally found in the Kena Upanishad.> The translation is as follows> > 2.2 The disciple said: I do not think I know> It(Brahman) well, nor do I think I do not know It.> He among us who knows the meaning of "Neither do I> not

know, nor do I know"—knows Brahman. > 2.3 He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It;> he by whom It is known, knows It not. It is not> known by those who know It; It is known by those who> do not know It. > > Basically the knowledge "aham brahmasmi" is the> knowledge about one's true self, it is a knowledge> of right self-identity. As even this knowledge> arises, the false superimposition called the Ego> vanishes. > In other words, self-knowledge is not knowledge of> something, like knowledge of a pot or knowledge of a> flower, but is a subjective knowledge of the real> "I" - sat-chit-ananda.> So if i say i know brahman, it means that there> are two entities - i and brahman. that how can i and> brahman be the same? only when it is realized firmy> as one's own swarupa and not as a "thing" to be> known can one says "he knows" or "he is

realized"> > Now let us take the three groups mentioned by the> revered Giyandka-ji.> The one who does not know whether he knows or does> not know is clearly ignorant of what this knowledge> is. If you ask him do you know who you are or who is> Ishwara he has no clue.> > The one who says he is realized also does not> know. This is because for a reality there was never> a time when he was not realized. Bondage and its> release are both fictitious from his standpoint -> the one who was bound and the one who obtained> release were both the very same imposter - the ego,> which meets its death upon realization. So there is> no "i"-sense that will say i am realized.> > The one who says "i am not realized" is ascribing> a reality to his bondage. Under the firm sway of> avidya, he is sure that he does not know nor does he> possess the

means to know the Divine which is ever> his true nature, right at this very moment.> > Trust this clarifies.> Hari OM> Shyam> > > > > > Love and Love alone....> > The one who has realised will not make any of the> three statements. He just lives in it. That is all.> > Love and Love alone....> > > On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki >> wrote: Ram Ram> > I am getting confused regarding following> paragraph. > > "I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He> said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained> God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I> do not know whether I have or not – all three have> not realized (attained God).' " >

> If no one among the three groups has realized God,> then who has realized God? Kindly explain.> > Manjula Goyal> > > > > Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv ar.org>> wrote: Ram Ram> > The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:> Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or> whatever we> call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names> given> to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,> feelings of> Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.> > With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that> 'God' is not something – God is certainly something> and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have> understood from the Gita is that God's form is> 'Existence' – not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may> not include Existence, but Existence includes and> also

excludes Consciousness. > > Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is> above Experience.> > Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness> but Existence (I use "I", as our reality which is> all perceiving> Consciousness) . We are aware of our consciousness> only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take> our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be> able to transcend it. > > The difference in what you have written and what I> have understood lies in the concept of Gyan> (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so> far as they both free you from the bondage of the> world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this> topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel> it will add to confusion (and also confirmation of> assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers.> Both views are correct.

> > As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one> path primarily (based on his interest) and not have> any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this> all paths will merge in the end. > > Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would> appreciate your comments.> > I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He> said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained> God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I> do not know whether I have or not – all three have> not realized (attained God).' > > On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a> question that if everything is just consciousness,> who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the> Chit, the Anand? He answered – at that stage no one> experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the> experience –

which is always existing. > > Something to illustrate the point:> > Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will> understand what I mean.> > O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I> > It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him> yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now.> > Ram Ram> > > Pratap Bhatt [ pratapbhatt ] > 03 March 2007 08:57> Gita Prapann Parivar> RE: Re: Do We Know Anything or> Have We Blindly Accepted Everything > > Dear Sadhak: > > I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving> Consciousness, not identified with body-mind,> thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we> allegedly know is perceived objects including our>

body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We> are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual.> This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we> read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say,> the world, mind and body cannot exist independently> of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be> of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness> (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time> perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person> gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in> the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is> of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the> nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti). > > As you say there is only God which I say> Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT experiencially,> right?> > Upon realization with the help of this deep> understanding-that he/she

never existed as> individual, never can and never will, then there is> experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no> enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she> functions in the world seemingly as individual "I"> just to play the role(Lila). > > Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or> whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it> is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the> mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty> in the world. > > You may want to comment if you see some> disconnect.> > Thank you..Pratap > > > >

March 13, 2007

|| Shri Hari ||

When my Mind does not Accept the Presence of God,

nor is it in a Position

to Present the necessary Input to prove the Absence of God

What is need of

relying 2222222 much on mind?

Ram Ram

i i

Ram Ram

--\

------

Dear Gita Talk Group Members,

Love and Love alone....

It is now very clear that the ego is completely vanished in a person who

realised himself. In other words, he will not identify himself as body or

body-conscious entity. He is One with That. Aham Brahmasmi. Thou art That. If he

is not identifying himself with the body, how can he say that he has or has not

realised God !!! Let us all pray that we reach that stage in this life itself.

Love and Love alone...

P. Gopi Krishna

--\

------

Hari Om.

We are sure that God Gives us life. There is no doubt in this at all.

A child is formed in the womb of a mother. Whatever the form may be, the srushti

takes place in the womb.

So, a mother gives life to a child. So, a mother is the first GOD to a child.

Through the mother it sees the world.

We cannot live in this world even a second without breathing. Air gives us life.

So GOD is omni present in the form of Air.

We need water to stay alive.It gives us life. So GOD is omni present in the form

of water.

We need Sun the Great ball of fire to live. Nothing can excist without the SUN.

So GOd is Omni present in the form of fire.

We need moon to live in this world. without the moon there cannot be any

gravitational pull and we cannot walk and be normal but for the moon. God is

omni present as moon.

Without earth we cannot live. God is omni present as earth.

Now please tell me where can u hunt for God. There is no question for ego.But

our ignorance is forcing us to think negatively.

If we free us from ignorance then only we can see GOD.

Pl.understand the truth and analyse the facts.

Hari OM.

usha sridhar

----

Hello ms.Majula ji,

I guess , I understand the reason for the confusion. To think about 'realization

of God' try to analyse what is it that you think about 'God Relaization' and not

based on anyone's understanding. All these reading/discussion is just the

feeling/experiences based on different personalities/perspectives. Try to go

thro these and also whenevr you read Bhagavadgita also, try to have the inner

faith in urself and understand that your own's self understanding about life is

your own self reliazation. Try to pay closer attention to the samll simple daily

activities and enjoy them and analyze if possible and do not if not possible.

its ok either way.

Have a nice wondreful day.

Regards. Bharathi

--\

-

Manjula Goel wrote:

Ram Ram

I am getting confused regarding following paragraph.

" I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of

Gita Press). He said – ‘The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one

who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all

three have not realized (attained God).’ "

If no one among the three groups has realized God, then who has realized God?

Kindly explain.

Manjula Goyal

Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak wrote:

Ram Ram

The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we

call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names given

to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind, feelings of

Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that ‘God’ is not something – God is

certainly something and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have

understood from the Gita is that God’s form is ‘Existence’ – not

‘Consciousness’. Consciousness may not include Existence, but Existence includes

and also excludes Consciousness.

Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is above Experience.

Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness but Existence (I use " I " , as

our reality which is all perceiving

Consciousness). We are aware of our consciousness only through our

‘mind/intellect’. Hence if we take our reality to be ‘Consciousness’ we will

never be able to transcend it.

The difference in what you have written and what I have understood lies in the

concept of Gyan (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so far as they

both free you from the bondage of the world and sorrows. I am not elaborating

more on this topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel it will add to

confusion (and also confirmation of assumed knowledge) in the minds of most

readers. Both views are correct.

As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one path primarily (based on his

interest) and not have any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this all

paths will merge in the end.

Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would appreciate your comments.

I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of

Gita Press). He said – ‘The one who says I have realized (attained God), the one

who says I have not, the on who says I do not know whether I have or not – all

three have not realized (attained God).’

On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a question that if everything is just

consciousness, who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the Chit, the Anand?

He answered – at that stage no one experiences it, there is no experiencer, only

the experience – which is always existing.

Something to illustrate the point:

Drag your mouse from ‘O’ to ‘I’ – you will understand what I mean.

O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I

It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him yet, but He certainly IS – Right

Here and Now.

Ram Ram

Pratap Bhatt [pratapbhatt]

03 March 2007 08:57

Gita Prapann Parivar

RE: Re: Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted

Everything

Dear Sadhak:

I use " I " , as our reality which is all perceiving Consciousness, not identified

with body-mind, thereby not limited in space-time. Everything we allegedly know

is perceived objects including our body-mind organism and world we assume out

there. We are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual. This is our

experience as Conscious Being even as we read these lines, not a theory, right?

Like you say, the world, mind and body cannot exist independently of

Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be of the form of Consciousness.

This Consciousness (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time perceives Itself

thru all boodies/minds, only person gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets

lost in the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is of the nature of

thoughts/feelings which is of the nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti).

As you say there is only God which I say Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT

experiencially, right?

Upon realization with the help of this deep understanding-that he/she never

existed as individual, never can and never will, then there is experience of the

WHOLENESS! No doership, no enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she

functions in the world seemingly as individual " I " just to play the role(Lila).

Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or whatever we call THAT is not some

thing, rather it is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,

feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.

You may want to comment if you see some disconnect.

Thank you..Pratap

March 13, 2007

God is not speculation. God is an expression of an experience which appears familiar to us in a minuscule form and suddenly you experience a million times bigger. like what we see is sun ray and the sum total is sun god! I would have done some this of charity of a very small nature I see some one making a charity of an infinite magnitude I give an expression to my feeling inside oh GOD! I can uphold my fathers words to some degree and some times I feel he is difficult to manage for his requirements. In such case I found a person by name Rama went to forest just because it is fathers words. when Kaikeyi says 'Rama this is some thing important and hesitates', Rama on hearing her demand says 'is this all'. what looks impossible for us was so easy for Rama So in my eyes he is god! So in my view god is not speculation nor imagination He is experience,Raghuramsundeep gupta <sundeepgupta1 wrote: Dear Sadhaks, I humbly submit that we are having quiet a bit of speculation and imagination about God in this particular discussion. This is complicating the whole concept, which may not be digestable for all. A simple trust in God, call it Lord, Krsna, Ram, Allah, whatever...is all that is necessary. Any further debate on forms of God is only from an intellectual angle, which may be contaminated with ego. SundeepPratap Bhatt

<pratapbhatt > wrote: Sadar Pranams:Very nicely explained. Even when one reads these lines one is bound to get a glimpse of one's true nature being Sat-Chit-Ananda! Nothing to do, nowhere to go, just BE.......what I already am!When sadhana is undertaken initially by "I", it will dawn on one that really it is the truth of what "I" is, attracts/directs the Sadhaka to realization, not "I" as it just doesn't exist. Guru is the form/channelTruth uses!Namaste....Pratap--- Shyam <shyam_md > wrote:> Humble pranams,> This is a very beautiful concept that is> originally found in the Kena Upanishad.> The translation is as follows> > 2.2 The disciple said: I do not think I know>

It(Brahman) well, nor do I think I do not know It.> He among us who knows the meaning of "Neither do I> not know, nor do I know"—knows Brahman. > 2.3 He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It;> he by whom It is known, knows It not. It is not> known by those who know It; It is known by those who> do not know It. > > Basically the knowledge "aham brahmasmi" is the> knowledge about one's true self, it is a knowledge> of right self-identity. As even this knowledge> arises, the false superimposition called the Ego> vanishes. > In other words, self-knowledge is not knowledge of> something, like knowledge of a pot or knowledge of a> flower, but is a subjective knowledge of the real> "I" - sat-chit-ananda.> So if i say i know brahman, it means that there> are two entities - i and brahman. that how can i and> brahman be the same? only when it is

realized firmy> as one's own swarupa and not as a "thing" to be> known can one says "he knows" or "he is realized"> > Now let us take the three groups mentioned by the> revered Giyandka-ji.> The one who does not know whether he knows or does> not know is clearly ignorant of what this knowledge> is. If you ask him do you know who you are or who is> Ishwara he has no clue.> > The one who says he is realized also does not> know. This is because for a reality there was never> a time when he was not realized. Bondage and its> release are both fictitious from his standpoint -> the one who was bound and the one who obtained> release were both the very same imposter - the ego,> which meets its death upon realization. So there is> no "i"-sense that will say i am realized.> > The one who says "i am not realized" is ascribing> a reality

to his bondage. Under the firm sway of> avidya, he is sure that he does not know nor does he> possess the means to know the Divine which is ever> his true nature, right at this very moment.> > Trust this clarifies.> Hari OM> Shyam> > > > > > Love and Love alone....> > The one who has realised will not make any of the> three statements. He just lives in it. That is all.> > Love and Love alone....> > > On 3/4/07, Manjula Goel <mailtominki >> wrote: Ram Ram> > I am getting confused regarding following> paragraph. > > "I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He> said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained> God), the one who says I have not, the on

who says I> do not know whether I have or not – all three have> not realized (attained God).' " > > If no one among the three groups has realized God,> then who has realized God? Kindly explain.> > Manjula Goyal> > > > > Gita Prapann Parivar <sadhak@prapannpariv ar.org>> wrote: Ram Ram> > The only disconnect that appears is in the lines:> Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or> whatever we> call THAT is not some thing, rather it is names> given> to THE experiences of Clarity in the mind,> feelings of> Pure Love in the heart and Beauty in the world.> > With my limited knowledge I cannot agree that> 'God' is not something – God is certainly something> and also nothing. I hope you understand. What I have> understood from the Gita is that God's form is> 'Existence' –

not 'Consciousness'. Consciousness may> not include Existence, but Existence includes and> also excludes Consciousness. > > Experience is above Consciousness and Existence is> above Experience.> > Similarly, our Reality is also not Consciousness> but Existence (I use "I", as our reality which is> all perceiving> Consciousness) . We are aware of our consciousness> only through our 'mind/intellect'. Hence if we take> our reality to be 'Consciousness' we will never be> able to transcend it. > > The difference in what you have written and what I> have understood lies in the concept of Gyan> (knowledge) and Bhakti (love). Both are the same so> far as they both free you from the bondage of the> world and sorrows. I am not elaborating more on this> topic of Gyan and Bhakti in this message as I feel> it will add to confusion

(and also confirmation of> assumed knowledge) in the minds of most readers.> Both views are correct. > > As Swamiji says - The sadhak should follow any one> path primarily (based on his interest) and not have> any ill feelings towards the other. If he does this> all paths will merge in the end. > > Please correct if my understanding is wrong. Would> appreciate your comments.> > I always remember one line of Sethji (Shri> Jaydayalji Goyandka, the founder of Gita Press). He> said – 'The one who says I have realized (attained> God), the one who says I have not, the on who says I> do not know whether I have or not – all three have> not realized (attained God).' > > On a similar note, someone asked Swamiji a> question that if everything is just consciousness,> who experiences the consciousness – the Sat, the> Chit, the Anand?

He answered – at that stage no one> experiences it, there is no experiencer, only the> experience – which is always existing. > > Something to illustrate the point:> > Drag your mouse from 'O' to 'I' – you will> understand what I mean.> > O Even though you cannot see Him God IS HERE I> > It is only that we cannot/or have not seen Him> yet, but He certainly IS – Right Here and Now.> > Ram Ram> > > Pratap Bhatt [ pratapbhatt ] > 03 March 2007 08:57> Gita Prapann Parivar> RE: Re: Do We Know Anything or> Have We Blindly Accepted Everything > > Dear Sadhak: > > I use "I", as our reality which is all perceiving> Consciousness, not identified with body-mind,> thereby

not limited in space-time. Everything we> allegedly know is perceived objects including our> body-mind organism and world we assume out there. We> are the ultimate Subject, again not as individual.> This is our experience as Conscious Being even as we> read these lines, not a theory, right? Like you say,> the world, mind and body cannot exist independently> of Consciousness perceiving and therefore has to be> of the form of Consciousness. This Consciousness> (Chit) which is Being (sat) at the same time> perceives Itself thru all boodies/minds, only person> gives them names/forms and his Bliss gets lost in> the objects. I mean perceived world by our mind is> of the nature of thoughts/feelings which is of the> nature of Consciousness itself(chitvritti). > > As you say there is only God which I say> Sat-Chit-Ananda and we are THAT

experiencially,> right?> > Upon realization with the help of this deep> understanding-that he/she never existed as> individual, never can and never will, then there is> experience of the WHOLENESS! No doership, no> enjoyership, no individuality either, and yet he/she> functions in the world seemingly as individual "I"> just to play the role(Lila). > > Finally God or Brahman or Consciousness or> whatever we call THAT is not some thing, rather it> is names given to THE experiences of Clarity in the> mind, feelings of Pure Love in the heart and Beauty> in the world. > > You may want to comment if you see some> disconnect.> > Thank you..Pratap > > > >

Sign In

Do We Know Anything or Have We Blindly Accepted Everything

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest