Guest guest Posted January 6, 2001 Report Share Posted January 6, 2001 Om Krishna Guru Namaste. I wasn't sure whether there was a certain order or time for sending in these lessons, but since people are answering now, i'll begin sending mine in. +---------------+ 1. God is everywhere in everything, when i speak he speaks, when i move, he moves, and thus he is in constant motion, around me and everywhere. He derives his power from Shakti and in this unified form becomes Narayana, no-longer he nor she, but everything, beyond perception, but within grasp. 2. Meditation, devotion, acknowledgement. 3. All is God.We are not dominated by god, we must abide by the constant motion that he in the form of Vasudevaya creates, to be able to perform action, thus our free will is in grasp, however this free will is performed through god, and can thus be predicted. Vasudevaya in the form of Vishnu and thus Krishna, could have made Arjuna fight that day on the battle field, yet he took the time to purswade him nevertheless. Therefore we dominate god, for he cannot perform his actions without us, however the good or evil of these actions. For the god-fearing, I can only recommend meditating, and let the sense of everything engulf you, sense that the air you breathe is god, and that the body you behold is god, and all actions and will is god. When I see god i smile.. I smile quite often. 4. A priest guides without predictive knowledge of past present and future of the native. A Jyotisha has this power, yet the Jyotisha guides with priestly ability. Please comment, i might be too agressive in my perception? Best wishes, Visti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 Sanjay, Since God is All--because God is One without a Second--All is God. There is only a meaningful difference between the two statements for a person who, knowing only material reality, implies by " All is God " that God is a collection of parts. Also, the Upanishadic statement " I know Him yet I know him not " has value from two angles: 1. The shishya is still the Shishya unless the shishya is Oneness/Brahman. 2. Brahman cannot be limited by words and hence any words will fail to bind Brahman (describe Brahman). Therefore, when using words, it may be appropriate to say " I know Him yet I know him not? " But for a master this hedging is unneeded. Yagnyavalkya is an example. When asked " Do you know this? " Yagnyavalkya answered " Yes " . In short, Brahman is water and water is Brahman because there is nothing but Brahman. If you are advising people to go beyond words and material reality, then I suppose this sort of debating has the value of shaking the mind from its identification with words, blood and stones. But if you are speaking with people who have reasonable amounts of experience of Oneness,as I hope most people on this list do, this sort of debating seems odd. If I misunderstand you, what point are you making? To what experience are you directing us? Jai Shri Ram, Steve --- Sanjay Rath <srath wrote: > Om Hrim Hamsa Soham Swaha > Dear Kiersten, > At long last someone got the correct answer to the > third question. This is > the path of a Brahma Yogi, who through the supreme > path of knowledge shall > attain Godhead. When someone says 'God is All', I > say no, 'All is God' and > when they say 'All is God', I say 'God is All'. > Actually both are right. If > you see the debates on the definition of God through > the definition of the > Brahman, then it is in this form.. > Brahman is water, but Brahman is not water.. > God is All, but God is not All.. > Kena Upanishad is a nice book to start with. > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath > - > " Bhaktin Kiersten " <khd > <varahamihira > > Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:32 PM > [sri Guru] Lesson 1 > > > > 3. Which statement is more relevant: a. God is > all, or b. All is God. > > While both statements sound equally relevant, I > sense that " God is > > all " better expresses His omnipotence and His true > identity as > > Supreme Personality of Godhead. > > > > > Photos - Share your holiday photos online! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2001 Report Share Posted January 13, 2001 Om Hrim Hamsa Soham Swaha Dear Steve, A very brilliant answer from one like you. Understanding Brahman is difficult, and so is the Narayana Dasa. This question is normally asked to a beginner at the time of entry to SJVC, the first lesson I think. The point is that I want to send an important message 'WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW MAY NOT BE WHAT IS CORRECT " . Recently one as learned as Narasimha was baffled as to why I had predicted something about Dr.M.M.Joshi in September 2001 when none of the Dasa start near this time. My clarification telephonically was " Almost all Jyotisha think that Rajyoga begin with the start of a sub-period and end with the ending of one. This notion built due to improper teaching or training is fixed deep inside the mind and is wrong. Maharishis have given us various tools to determine whether the planet shall give its results in the begining (1-3antardasa), middle (4-6antardasa) or end (7-9antardasa). " I am not a Diksha Guru and it is not my intention to explain the true nature of Brahman. I only kindle that little light so that the people read the Kena Upanishad for themselves and tell me what they think, to find their paths the way their mainds direct them. All is God is a narrowing perspective of saturn and God is all is the expansive view of Jupiter. These are views and it helps " ME TO SEE " how best I can help the one who seeks the knowledge from me. As regards the spiritual path, I leave it to their own destinies..May Jaggannath be kind and guide all to their Diksha Guru's. Finishing here. Again that was a good reply, but then the definition is still not complete because among the NAVAGRAHA, neither Jupiter nor Saturn alone can define God. This is what I want you all to think. The Navagraha themselves, all together cannot define God, so, the spiritual quest only begins with Jyotish. It does not and cannot end here. Thus the Jaimini's Upadesa is the begining of Spiritual Astrology, not its end. That is where the Gita is relevant. Again the comparision between two to define what is correct is also wrong as the question is not complete, since neither of the answers are complete in themselves. It is only a question of relative accuracy or correctness. I hope my clarification is beneficial for all. Best Regards Sanjay Rath - " Stephen K. Sufian " <veda108 <varahamihira > Friday, January 12, 2001 4:42 AM Re: [sri Guru] Lesson 1 > Sanjay, > Since God is All--because God is One without a > Second--All is God. There is only a meaningful > difference between the two statements for a person > who, knowing only material reality, implies by " All is > God " that God is a collection of parts. > > Also, the Upanishadic statement " I know Him yet I know > him not " has value from two angles: 1. The shishya is > still the Shishya unless the shishya is > Oneness/Brahman. 2. Brahman cannot be limited by words > and hence any words will fail to bind Brahman > (describe Brahman). Therefore, when using words, it > may be appropriate to say " I know Him yet I know him > not? " But for a master this hedging is unneeded. > Yagnyavalkya is an example. When asked " Do you know > this? " Yagnyavalkya answered " Yes " . > > In short, Brahman is water and water is Brahman > because there is nothing but Brahman. > > If you are advising people to go beyond words and > material reality, then I suppose this sort of debating > has the value of shaking the mind from its > identification with words, blood and stones. But if > you are speaking with people who have reasonable > amounts of experience of Oneness,as I hope most people > on this list do, this sort of debating seems odd. > > If I misunderstand you, what point are you making? To > what experience are you directing us? > Jai Shri Ram, > Steve > --- Sanjay Rath <srath wrote: > > Om Hrim Hamsa Soham Swaha > > Dear Kiersten, > > At long last someone got the correct answer to the > > third question. This is > > the path of a Brahma Yogi, who through the supreme > > path of knowledge shall > > attain Godhead. When someone says 'God is All', I > > say no, 'All is God' and > > when they say 'All is God', I say 'God is All'. > > Actually both are right. If > > you see the debates on the definition of God through > > the definition of the > > Brahman, then it is in this form.. > > Brahman is water, but Brahman is not water.. > > God is All, but God is not All.. > > Kena Upanishad is a nice book to start with. > > Best Wishes > > Sanjay Rath > > - > > " Bhaktin Kiersten " <khd > > <varahamihira > > > Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:32 PM > > [sri Guru] Lesson 1 > > > > > > 3. Which statement is more relevant: a. God is > > all, or b. All is God. > > > While both statements sound equally relevant, I > > sense that " God is > > > all " better expresses His omnipotence and His true > > identity as > > > Supreme Personality of Godhead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > > > OM TAT SAT > Archive: varahamihira > Info: varahamihira/info.html > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.