Guest guest Posted August 4, 2008 Report Share Posted August 4, 2008 -Shree Hari- Regarding B.G 7:26:- 'I know, Arjuna, the beings of the past, the present and the future, but no one knows me.' Put me in mind of an Yoga Aphorism, I once read and tracked down again:- (Independence 12) 'The past and future exist in their own ways, qualities having different ways.' I have thought upon this and discussed this subject in the past with people from various philosophies and theologies, there was general agreement it seems. The best analogy that was brought up was; if you have a movie of a film, and observe it in the time domain, then you would observe the story unfold. But however if you were able to observe the whole film at one moment, (i.e. laid out before you), the whole story can be seen in an instant. I wonder if anyone could shed more light upon this subject? With Respect and Divine Love, Mike (Mike Keenor) ------------------------------- GUIDELINES FOR POSTING A RESPONSE: 1. The group is focused on the Holy Gitaji, therefore, only responses which further clarify the understanding of Gitaji, will be posted. 2. Making reference of Gitaji shloka is highly encouraged - at least once in the response. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or other scriptures to substantiate your response. 3. Please be as concise and to the point as possible, respecting sadhaka's time. Under no circustance the answer should exceed say one (book) page at the most (500 words or so) 3-4 paragraphs. 4. Kindly limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc. to the extent that they further help in understanding the Gita shlokas 5. Kindly focus your writing to the subject at hand only. 6. Please do not include links to the other sites or other organizations. 7. Complete reproduction of texts from any book is strongly discouraged, however references may be made of the book or author (but not links to other sites). 8. Kindly do not include your personal information such as phone number, address etc. 9. Please do not address the response to a particular individual since the message is going to the entire group. 10. Due to the large readership, only those responses will be posted which are in line with the general philosophy of taking Shrimad Bhagavad Gita as the reference. 11. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if content is unclear for distribution or not directly related to the question being asked. 12. Please respond taking into consideration the novices, youth, westerners, non-sectarian audience. Kindly limit the use of only Sanskrit words, rather provide the English word with Sanskrit bracketed wherever possible. 13. Any personal remarks over the knowledge of any sadhak or about the stage at which any sadhak is standing in his quest / sadhna / spiritual journey - must not be included in your posting.'' 14. There should not be any sarcasm towards fellow sadhaks in this spiritual learning and sharing. MODERATOR Ram Ram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 The use of the word THERE is a give away. You have used it in relation to consciousness as being THERE. Consciousness is always HERE. The difference is total. Your statement is still coming from the time bound mind which has ideas of distance and therefore a THERE. THIS is all that is and all of THIS is now. Avasa Adrian Meyers -------------------------------- Hari Om Yeah Mike. There is no length in space and time. Hence you are right. Where that atom of consciousness (i.e. Individualised consciousness) is existing, space has come to evidence. When it is existing, then there is time. Thought alone is described by the name space or time, because, under the influence of that thought, space and time have arrived at existence. As this appearance of the creation of the world is just an illussion, so this manifestation of a moment or an aeon, only an illusion. If one obtains the perception of the whole of a universal cycle of time in a moment, that aeon exists in the moment alone. No doubt on this ! ! If one experiences momentariness in a universal cycle of time, then, even that aeon becomes moment immediately. Consciousness is indeed composed of such characteristics. The night is an aeon to one who is afflicted and it is only a moment to one who is delighted. A moment would become an aeon in a dream and an aeon would become a moment ! Harishchandra experienced one night as twelve years. Lavana experienced a hundred years of life through one night. That which is one thirtieth of a day of Brahma (the creator God) , is the duration of life of Sage Manu. That which is the duration of life of Brahma , is indeed a day of Visnu ( the protector God). There are neither days nor nights to one whose mind is destroyed by meditation. Likewise, a night became twelve years in Harishchandra. One day acts like a year to those separated from their mistresses ! And of course to those devotees who cannot remain away from their Paramatma !! Jai Shree Krishna Vyas N B - Dear Sadhakas, Namaste! Krishna is God (Supreme Consciousness as Swamiji never fails to say) incarnation. As such He is witnessing Consciousness - Atman which is timeless, beginning-less, and endless. Thus, He will always know all beings of the past, present, and future. All beings derive their beingness from Him and appear in Him whenever they do appear. There has been never a time where Krishna as Consciousness was not there, nor will be in future! Consciousness cannot be not there! To say there was no consciousness in the beginning, one needs to be conscious to say it! It is like a man standing firmly on the ground can watch running train in motion while people of the train can hardly know who is watching the train. In the same sense Krishna is saying to Arjuna He knows all but no one knows Him, the Consciousness- Atman. As an identified individual, one is ever changing, not realizing his real nature(swarupa) is changeless, hence he cannot know beings in different times. It is said that those who experience near death situations and survive to tell their stories, a common part of the story is that their entire life flashed in an instant before their eyes. An instant is of near zero duration from mind's point of view as mind understands everything in time duration only. However, this zero duration of mind is eternity looking from Krishna-Consciousne ss point of view. Even " we " have never experienced time except in and as after-thought. This is because when we perceive an object in a moment, we are speechless, and when we describe our experience, the moment of perception is gone, so it is always past we are talking about as if happened in present as after-thought. Realization of our timelessness- spaceless nature frees us from attachment to body which exists in time, the cause of fear of death. Most importantly, it gives us proper perspective of time to use it objectively and for God Realization! Namaskaras.. ......... Pratap (Pratap Bhatt) -- -Dear Sadhaks, Human brain is designed to take up 3 - Kriya Sakthi, Icha Sakthi, Gyna Sakthi. These are limited to certain extent. Suppose a man falling down stairways, he knows that he is falling, (Gyna- Knowledge), he is trying not to slip (Kriya), desires not to fall (Icha). But he falls. The brain is so in human. In animals they cannot resist being killed, even unaware. A step ahead human. But human alone can develop this sakthis to infinite level. Rama Rishi, Shirdi Sai Baba, etc could tell a persons previous births, where he was born etc. and can tell what happens to him. So past present and future is for human beings that have not attained realization. Lord Vishnu has taken 9 incarnations and 10th awaited. So for HIM no time span. Humans cannot remember things of present birth, that is why the question came. B.Sathyanarayan -- , " sadhak_insight " <sadhak_insight wrote: > > -Shree Hari- > > Regarding B.G 7:26:- 'I know, Arjuna, the beings of the past, the > present and the future, but no one knows me.' > Put me in mind of an Yoga Aphorism, I once read and tracked down > again:- (Independence 12) 'The past and future exist in their own > ways, qualities having different ways.' > I have thought upon this and discussed this subject in the past with > people from various philosophies and theologies, there was general > agreement it seems. > The best analogy that was brought up was; if you have a movie of a > film, and observe it in the time domain, then you would observe > the story unfold. But however if you were able to observe the whole > film at one moment, (i.e. laid out before you), the whole story can > be seen in an instant. > I wonder if anyone could shed more light upon this subject? > > With Respect and Divine Love, > > Mike > (Mike Keenor) > > ------------------------------- > GUIDELINES FOR POSTING A RESPONSE: > > 1. The group is focused on the Holy Gitaji, therefore, only > responses which further clarify the understanding of Gitaji, will be > posted. > > 2. Making reference of Gitaji shloka is highly encouraged - at least > once in the response. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or > other scriptures to substantiate your response. > > 3. Please be as concise and to the point as possible, respecting > sadhaka's time. Under no circustance the answer should exceed say > one (book) page at the most (500 words or so) 3-4 paragraphs. > > 4. Kindly limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc. to the > extent that they further help in understanding the Gita shlokas > > 5. Kindly focus your writing to the subject at hand only. > > 6. Please do not include links to the other sites or other > organizations. > > 7. Complete reproduction of texts from any book is strongly > discouraged, however references may be made of the book or author > (but not links to other sites). > > 8. Kindly do not include your personal information such as phone > number, address etc. > > 9. Please do not address the response to a particular individual > since the message is going to the entire group. > > 10. Due to the large readership, only those responses will be posted > which are in line with the general philosophy of taking Shrimad > Bhagavad Gita as the reference. > > 11. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if content > is unclear for distribution or not directly related to the question > being asked. > > 12. Please respond taking into consideration the novices, youth, > westerners, non-sectarian audience. Kindly limit the use of only > Sanskrit words, rather provide the English word with Sanskrit > bracketed wherever possible. > > 13. Any personal remarks over the knowledge of any sadhak or about > the stage at which any sadhak is standing in his quest / sadhna / > spiritual journey - must not be included in your posting.'' > > 14. There should not be any sarcasm towards fellow sadhaks in this > spiritual learning and sharing. > > MODERATOR > Ram Ram > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Hari Om Consciousness can neither be " here " nor be " there " , it is everywhere ! If it is " here " then it has to be necessarily " there " also. How calling consciousness " there " denotes a time bound mind and calling " here " denotes an unbound or timeless mind? Basic question here is as to Whether mind exists ? If yes, then how can time and space remain unobserved ? If no, what difference " here " or " there " makes ? Where does the distinctions of " time bound " / " timeless " / " timefree " / " bonded' etc arise ? In mind only or somewhere else? Can a liberated person perceive bondage? Do not delusions or perturbations, such as the mind, come to an end having burnt into the fire of universal consciousness ? If yes, then who can give away what and to whom? A difference is a " difference " - total, subtle, minor, major these are variations / distances / perceptions with that reference only - whether these variations / distances exist in the " difference " itself or in " mind " ? If these variations do not exist in " difference " , then how can in universal consciousness variations such as " here " or " there " exist ? If " there " does not exist, then " here " also does not exist ! If these variations exist in " difference " , then what is wrong in indicating a universal element by " here " or " there " ? If it is universal then it is everywhere. How can it be a universal / all pervading element if it is only " here " and not " there " ? " There " is certainly an element called consciousness ! It is universal, all pervading, only that exists in reality and nothing else, but so long it is " individualised " (that is perceived as " here " and not " there " ) you can not live it, (as liberated souls live that and enjoy its bliss) because then the mind remains in picture - measuring distances, time, space, here, there, differences, totalities, bondages, this, that, now, future, giving away, taking away, giver, taker, right, wrong etc ! ! It is another matter that the questioner has no where in the question used the consciousness as being " there " ! Jai Shree Krishna Vyas N B ------------------------------ Dear Adrian Meyers Life is going nowhere is also equal to life is now and here. No going is required because life is now and here. Nowhere is now here. Two pillars of spiritual life are now and here. regards & love Ashok Jain Dear Sadhakas, Namaste! Adrianji has rightly pointed out, Consciousness is always here and now, not there. I want to clarify by emphasizing the point he made here! In my posting I used it to suggest Its non-being/non-existence is not possible. Only in language it is used, just as we say " there is a tree " to mean that tree is here and now. The word " there " is not to suggest any distance opposed to " here " in this context, just as " here " doesn't suggest location in space opposed to " there " when we say Consciouseness is here and now. Here " now " is not opposed to " later " either. As a matter of fact the tree we experience is made up of the stuff (vastu in upanishadic language) of Consciousness and as such is one with it. Since I am also Consciousness, one can say Consciousness is all there is, in our experience! In this statement " there " is used to point out that since Consciousness is One without a second, everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, It cannot be " here " and not " there " , or vice versa, if both imply idea of its being located in space! Further if there is only That(Consciousness), nothing second, do we need to call it That? Even the word Consciousness is a concept of mind, useful as it is! Doesn't it point to the undescribable Experience as described in the scripture? We never experience anything other than us NOW, an Eternity. Here NOW itself is meant to point to Consciouseness, Atman, God, Reality, I or as Upanishad says THAT! Namaskars......Pratap (Pratap Bhatt) -- , " sadhak_insight " <sadhak_insight wrote: > > The use of the word THERE is a give away. > You have used it in relation to consciousness as being THERE. > Consciousness is always HERE. > The difference is total. > Your statement is still coming from the time bound mind which has > ideas of distance and therefore a THERE. > THIS is all that is and all of THIS is now. > > Avasa > Adrian Meyers > > -------------------------------- > Hari Om > > Yeah Mike. There is no length in space and time. Hence you are right. > > Where that atom of consciousness (i.e. Individualised consciousness) > is existing, space has come to evidence. When it is existing, then > there is time. > > Thought alone is described by the name space or time, because, under > the influence of that thought, space and time have arrived at > existence. As this appearance of the creation of the world is just > an illussion, so this manifestation of a moment or an aeon, only an > illusion. > > If one obtains the perception of the whole of a universal cycle of > time in a moment, that aeon exists in the moment alone. No doubt on > this ! ! > > If one experiences momentariness in a universal cycle of time, then, > even that aeon becomes moment immediately. Consciousness is indeed > composed of such characteristics. > > The night is an aeon to one who is afflicted and it is only a moment > to one who is delighted. A moment would become an aeon in a dream > and an aeon would become a moment ! > > Harishchandra experienced one night as twelve years. Lavana > experienced a hundred years of life through one night. That which is > one thirtieth of a day of Brahma (the creator God) , is the duration > of life of Sage Manu. That which is the duration of life of Brahma , > is indeed a day of Visnu ( the protector God). > > There are neither days nor nights to one whose mind is destroyed by > meditation. > > Likewise, a night became twelve years in Harishchandra. One day acts > like a year to those separated from their mistresses ! > > And of course to those devotees who cannot remain away from their > Paramatma !! > > Jai Shree Krishna > > Vyas N B > > - > Dear Sadhakas, Namaste! > > Krishna is God (Supreme Consciousness as Swamiji never fails to say) > incarnation. As such He is witnessing Consciousness - Atman which is > timeless, beginning-less, and endless. Thus, He will always know all > beings of the past, present, and future. All beings derive their > beingness from Him and appear in Him whenever they do appear. > There has been never a time where Krishna as Consciousness was not > there, nor will be in future! Consciousness cannot be not there! To > say there was no consciousness in the beginning, one needs to be > conscious to say it! > > It is like a man standing firmly on the ground can watch running > train in motion while people of the train can hardly know who is > watching the train. In the same sense Krishna is saying to Arjuna He > knows all but no one knows Him, the Consciousness- Atman. As an > identified individual, one is ever changing, not realizing his real > nature(swarupa) is changeless, hence he cannot know beings in > different times. > > It is said that those who experience near death situations and > survive to tell their stories, a common part of the story is that > their entire life flashed in an instant before their eyes. > An instant is of near zero duration from mind's point of view as > mind understands everything in time duration only. However, this > zero duration of mind is eternity looking from Krishna-Consciousne > ss point of view. Even " we " have never experienced time except in > and as after-thought. This is because when we perceive an object in > a moment, we are speechless, and when we describe our experience, > the moment of perception is gone, so it is always past we are > talking about as if happened in present as after-thought. > Realization of our timelessness- spaceless nature frees us from > attachment to body which exists in time, the cause of fear of > death. Most importantly, it gives us proper perspective of time to > use it objectively and for God Realization! > > Namaskaras.. ......... > > Pratap > (Pratap Bhatt) > - - > > -Dear Sadhaks, > > Human brain is designed to take up 3 - Kriya Sakthi, Icha Sakthi, > Gyna Sakthi. These are limited to certain extent. Suppose a man > falling down stairways, he knows that he is falling, > (Gyna- Knowledge), he is trying not to slip (Kriya), desires not to > fall (Icha). But he falls. The brain is so in human. In animals they > cannot resist being killed, even unaware. A step ahead human. But > human alone can develop this sakthis to infinite level. Rama Rishi, > Shirdi Sai Baba, etc could tell a persons previous births, where he > was born etc. and can tell what happens to him. > > So past present and future is for human beings that have not > attained realization. > > Lord Vishnu has taken 9 incarnations and 10th awaited. So for HIM no > time span. Humans cannot remember things of present birth, that is > why the question came. > > B.Sathyanarayan > > > > - - > , " sadhak_insight " > <sadhak_insight@> wrote: > > > > -Shree Hari- > > > > Regarding B.G 7:26:- 'I know, Arjuna, the beings of the past, the > > present and the future, but no one knows me.' > > Put me in mind of an Yoga Aphorism, I once read and tracked down > > again:- (Independence 12) 'The past and future exist in their own > > ways, qualities having different ways.' > > I have thought upon this and discussed this subject in the past > with > > people from various philosophies and theologies, there was general > > agreement it seems. > > The best analogy that was brought up was; if you have a movie of a > > film, and observe it in the time domain, then you would observe > > the story unfold. But however if you were able to observe the whole > > film at one moment, (i.e. laid out before you), the whole story > can > > be seen in an instant. > > I wonder if anyone could shed more light upon this subject? > > > > With Respect and Divine Love, > > > > Mike > > (Mike Keenor) > > > > ------------------------------- > > GUIDELINES FOR POSTING A RESPONSE: > > > > 1. The group is focused on the Holy Gitaji, therefore, only > > responses which further clarify the understanding of Gitaji, will > be > > posted. > > > > 2. Making reference of Gitaji shloka is highly encouraged - at > least > > once in the response. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or > > other scriptures to substantiate your response. > > > > 3. Please be as concise and to the point as possible, respecting > > sadhaka's time. Under no circustance the answer should exceed say > > one (book) page at the most (500 words or so) 3-4 paragraphs. > > > > 4. Kindly limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc. to the > > extent that they further help in understanding the Gita shlokas > > > > 5. Kindly focus your writing to the subject at hand only. > > > > 6. Please do not include links to the other sites or other > > organizations. > > > > 7. Complete reproduction of texts from any book is strongly > > discouraged, however references may be made of the book or author > > (but not links to other sites). > > > > 8. Kindly do not include your personal information such as phone > > number, address etc. > > > > 9. Please do not address the response to a particular individual > > since the message is going to the entire group. > > > > 10. Due to the large readership, only those responses will be > posted > > which are in line with the general philosophy of taking Shrimad > > Bhagavad Gita as the reference. > > > > 11. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if > content > > is unclear for distribution or not directly related to the > question > > being asked. > > > > 12. Please respond taking into consideration the novices, youth, > > westerners, non-sectarian audience. Kindly limit the use of only > > Sanskrit words, rather provide the English word with Sanskrit > > bracketed wherever possible. > > > > 13. Any personal remarks over the knowledge of any sadhak or about > > the stage at which any sadhak is standing in his quest / sadhna / > > spiritual journey - must not be included in your posting.'' > > > > 14. There should not be any sarcasm towards fellow sadhaks in this > > spiritual learning and sharing. > > > > MODERATOR > > Ram Ram > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Jai Shri Krishna, Even if Here or This or Now represents present - then too the mind is time bound. Because if past and future do not exist, then the present also does not exist. Where is present? Every fraction of a second - future is converting into past. Non existence is merging into non existence. Mind calls merely the converting line as present. Present is only self and Paramatma i.e. Consciousness - but certainly it can't be referred as Here. If it is denoted as Here then existence of There is automatic. Hence in reality neither present, nor past, nor future, neither Here nor There, neither This nor That, neither Now nor then are suitable words used to describe. The moment relativity comes, absolute goes. Vyasji has answered the question in an excellent manner. Consciousness is here, there and everywhere. That Consciousness is Parmaatma. Past, present or future – these three time zones exist only in the eyes of Jiva (embodied soul), not in Parmaatma's eyes. Just as a person watching a movie differentiates between past, present and future in the movie – but in the movie everything is in the present only. Similarly, for Parmaatma everything is in present only. For Him and realized souls, there is no independent existence of the world at all, instead all is Parmaatma only – Vasudevah Sarvam (Gita 7:19). We have given existence and importance to the world and its various time zones. That's why Krishna talks of past, present and future in our language so that we can understand Him. If he does not talk in our language then how will we understand Him. Just as if our English language teacher talks to us in English only first then we can never learn English at all, he has to talk to us in a language which we understand to enable us to learn English. Actually none of past, present or future is permanent – but Parmaatma remains always. Just as past and future are not in existence right now, similarly even present also is not in existence right now. A joint of past and future only is called present. That which changes cannot be present and that which is present does not change. Parmaatma is in past, present and future, always, everywhere. In Him there is no past, present or future. He is beyond the time zones. If we believe Gitaji, there should not be any doubt as to confirmations declared therein by Krishna. Narayana Narayana Rajendra J Bohra , " sadhak_insight " <sadhak_insight wrote: > > Hari Om > > Consciousness can neither be " here " nor be " there " , it is > everywhere ! If it is " here " then it has to be necessarily " there " > also. > > How calling consciousness " there " denotes a time bound mind and > calling " here " denotes an unbound or timeless mind? Basic question > here is as to Whether mind exists ? If yes, then how can time and > space remain unobserved ? If no, what difference " here " or " there " > makes ? > > Where does the distinctions of " time bound " / " timeless " / " timefree " / > " bonded' etc arise ? In mind only or somewhere else? Can a liberated > person perceive bondage? > > Do not delusions or perturbations, such as the mind, come to an end > having burnt into the fire of universal consciousness ? If yes, then > who can give away what and to whom? > > A difference is a " difference " - total, subtle, minor, major these > are variations / distances / perceptions with that reference only - > whether these variations / distances exist in the " difference " > itself or in " mind " ? If these variations do not exist > in " difference " , then how can in universal consciousness variations > such as " here " or " there " exist ? If " there " does not exist, > then " here " also does not exist ! If these variations exist > in " difference " , then what is wrong in indicating a universal > element by " here " or " there " ? If it is universal then it is > everywhere. How can it be a universal / all pervading element if it > is only " here " and not " there " ? > > " There " is certainly an element called consciousness ! It is > universal, all pervading, only that exists in reality and nothing > else, but so long it is " individualised " (that is perceived > as " here " and not " there " ) you can not live it, (as liberated souls > live that and enjoy its bliss) because then the mind remains in > picture - measuring distances, time, space, here, there, > differences, totalities, bondages, this, that, now, future, giving > away, taking away, giver, taker, right, wrong etc ! ! > > It is another matter that the questioner has no where in the question > used the consciousness as being " there " ! > > Jai Shree Krishna > > Vyas N B > > ------------------------------ > > Dear Adrian Meyers > > Life is going nowhere is also equal to life is now and here. > No going is required because life is now and here. > > Nowhere is now here. Two pillars of spiritual life are now and here. > > regards & love > > Ashok Jain > > > Dear Sadhakas, Namaste! > Adrianji has rightly pointed out, Consciousness is always here and > now, not there. > I want to clarify by emphasizing the point he made here! > In my posting I used it to suggest Its non-being/non-existence is > not possible. Only in language it is used, just as we say " there is > a tree " to mean that tree is here and now. > The word " there " is not to suggest any distance opposed to " here " in > this context, just as " here " doesn't suggest location in space > opposed to " there " when we say Consciouseness is here and now. > Here " now " is not opposed to " later " either. > > As a matter of fact the tree we experience is made up of the stuff > (vastu in upanishadic language) of Consciousness and as such is one > with it. Since I am also Consciousness, one can say Consciousness is > all there is, in our experience! In this statement " there " is used > to point out that since Consciousness is One without a second, > everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, It cannot be " here " and > not " there " , or vice versa, if both imply idea of its being located > in space! > > Further if there is only That(Consciousness), nothing second, do we > need to call it That? Even the word Consciousness is a concept of > mind, useful as it is! Doesn't it point to the undescribable > Experience as described in the scripture? > We never experience anything other than us NOW, an Eternity. Here > NOW itself is meant to point to Consciouseness, Atman, God, Reality, > I or as Upanishad says THAT! > > Namaskars......Pratap > (Pratap Bhatt) > - - > , " sadhak_insight " > <sadhak_insight@> wrote: > > > > The use of the word THERE is a give away. > > You have used it in relation to consciousness as being THERE. > > Consciousness is always HERE. > > The difference is total. > > Your statement is still coming from the time bound mind which has > > ideas of distance and therefore a THERE. > > THIS is all that is and all of THIS is now. > > > > Avasa > > Adrian Meyers > > > > -------------------------------- > > Hari Om > > > > Yeah Mike. There is no length in space and time. Hence you are > right. > > > > Where that atom of consciousness (i.e. Individualised > consciousness) > > is existing, space has come to evidence. When it is existing, then > > there is time. > > > > Thought alone is described by the name space or time, because, > under > > the influence of that thought, space and time have arrived at > > existence. As this appearance of the creation of the world is just > > an illussion, so this manifestation of a moment or an aeon, only > an > > illusion. > > > > If one obtains the perception of the whole of a universal cycle of > > time in a moment, that aeon exists in the moment alone. No doubt > on > > this ! ! > > > > If one experiences momentariness in a universal cycle of time, > then, > > even that aeon becomes moment immediately. Consciousness is indeed > > composed of such characteristics. > > > > The night is an aeon to one who is afflicted and it is only a > moment > > to one who is delighted. A moment would become an aeon in a dream > > and an aeon would become a moment ! > > > > Harishchandra experienced one night as twelve years. Lavana > > experienced a hundred years of life through one night. That which > is > > one thirtieth of a day of Brahma (the creator God) , is the > duration > > of life of Sage Manu. That which is the duration of life of > Brahma , > > is indeed a day of Visnu ( the protector God). > > > > There are neither days nor nights to one whose mind is destroyed > by > > meditation. > > > > Likewise, a night became twelve years in Harishchandra. One day > acts > > like a year to those separated from their mistresses ! > > > > And of course to those devotees who cannot remain away from their > > Paramatma !! > > > > Jai Shree Krishna > > > > Vyas N B > > > > -------------------------------- -- > > Dear Sadhakas, Namaste! > > > > Krishna is God (Supreme Consciousness as Swamiji never fails to > say) > > incarnation. As such He is witnessing Consciousness - Atman which > is > > timeless, beginning-less, and endless. Thus, He will always know > all > > beings of the past, present, and future. All beings derive their > > beingness from Him and appear in Him whenever they do appear. > > There has been never a time where Krishna as Consciousness was not > > there, nor will be in future! Consciousness cannot be not there! > To > > say there was no consciousness in the beginning, one needs to be > > conscious to say it! > > > > It is like a man standing firmly on the ground can watch running > > train in motion while people of the train can hardly know who is > > watching the train. In the same sense Krishna is saying to Arjuna > He > > knows all but no one knows Him, the Consciousness- Atman. As an > > identified individual, one is ever changing, not realizing his > real > > nature(swarupa) is changeless, hence he cannot know beings in > > different times. > > > > It is said that those who experience near death situations and > > survive to tell their stories, a common part of the story is that > > their entire life flashed in an instant before their eyes. > > An instant is of near zero duration from mind's point of view as > > mind understands everything in time duration only. However, this > > zero duration of mind is eternity looking from Krishna- Consciousne > > ss point of view. Even " we " have never experienced time except in > > and as after-thought. This is because when we perceive an object > in > > a moment, we are speechless, and when we describe our experience, > > the moment of perception is gone, so it is always past we are > > talking about as if happened in present as after-thought. > > Realization of our timelessness- spaceless nature frees us from > > attachment to body which exists in time, the cause of fear of > > death. Most importantly, it gives us proper perspective of time to > > use it objectively and for God Realization! > > > > Namaskaras.. ......... > > > > Pratap > > (Pratap Bhatt) > > -------------------------------- -- > - > > > > -Dear Sadhaks, > > > > Human brain is designed to take up 3 - Kriya Sakthi, Icha Sakthi, > > Gyna Sakthi. These are limited to certain extent. Suppose a man > > falling down stairways, he knows that he is falling, > > (Gyna- Knowledge), he is trying not to slip (Kriya), desires not > to > > fall (Icha). But he falls. The brain is so in human. In animals > they > > cannot resist being killed, even unaware. A step ahead human. But > > human alone can develop this sakthis to infinite level. Rama > Rishi, > > Shirdi Sai Baba, etc could tell a persons previous births, where > he > > was born etc. and can tell what happens to him. > > > > So past present and future is for human beings that have not > > attained realization. > > > > Lord Vishnu has taken 9 incarnations and 10th awaited. So for HIM > no > > time span. Humans cannot remember things of present birth, that is > > why the question came. > > > > B.Sathyanarayan > > > > > > > > -------------------------------- -- > - > > , " sadhak_insight " > > <sadhak_insight@> wrote: > > > > > > -Shree Hari- > > > > > > Regarding B.G 7:26:- 'I know, Arjuna, the beings of the past, > the > > > present and the future, but no one knows me.' > > > Put me in mind of an Yoga Aphorism, I once read and tracked down > > > again:- (Independence 12) 'The past and future exist in their > own > > > ways, qualities having different ways.' > > > I have thought upon this and discussed this subject in the past > > with > > > people from various philosophies and theologies, there was > general > > > agreement it seems. > > > The best analogy that was brought up was; if you have a movie of > a > > > film, and observe it in the time domain, then you would observe > > > the story unfold. But however if you were able to observe the > whole > > > film at one moment, (i.e. laid out before you), the whole story > > can > > > be seen in an instant. > > > I wonder if anyone could shed more light upon this subject? > > > > > > With Respect and Divine Love, > > > > > > Mike > > > (Mike Keenor) > > > > > > ------------------------------ - > > > GUIDELINES FOR POSTING A RESPONSE: > > > > > > 1. The group is focused on the Holy Gitaji, therefore, only > > > responses which further clarify the understanding of Gitaji, > will > > be > > > posted. > > > > > > 2. Making reference of Gitaji shloka is highly encouraged - at > > least > > > once in the response. Wherever possible, please quote Gitaji or > > > other scriptures to substantiate your response. > > > > > > 3. Please be as concise and to the point as possible, respecting > > > sadhaka's time. Under no circustance the answer should exceed > say > > > one (book) page at the most (500 words or so) 3-4 paragraphs. > > > > > > 4. Kindly limit personal feelings, opinions, beliefs etc. to the > > > extent that they further help in understanding the Gita shlokas > > > > > > 5. Kindly focus your writing to the subject at hand only. > > > > > > 6. Please do not include links to the other sites or other > > > organizations. > > > > > > 7. Complete reproduction of texts from any book is strongly > > > discouraged, however references may be made of the book or > author > > > (but not links to other sites). > > > > > > 8. Kindly do not include your personal information such as phone > > > number, address etc. > > > > > > 9. Please do not address the response to a particular individual > > > since the message is going to the entire group. > > > > > > 10. Due to the large readership, only those responses will be > > posted > > > which are in line with the general philosophy of taking Shrimad > > > Bhagavad Gita as the reference. > > > > > > 11. Moderator at his discretion, may modify the posting, if > > content > > > is unclear for distribution or not directly related to the > > question > > > being asked. > > > > > > 12. Please respond taking into consideration the novices, youth, > > > westerners, non-sectarian audience. Kindly limit the use of only > > > Sanskrit words, rather provide the English word with Sanskrit > > > bracketed wherever possible. > > > > > > 13. Any personal remarks over the knowledge of any sadhak or > about > > > the stage at which any sadhak is standing in his quest / sadhna / > > > spiritual journey - must not be included in your posting.'' > > > > > > 14. There should not be any sarcasm towards fellow sadhaks in > this > > > spiritual learning and sharing. > > > > > > MODERATOR > > > Ram Ram > > > > > > 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.