God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate Thread)

[Guest guest]

God in Man, or Man in God ?

 

Nothing is within us, as people say about God.

God is within and without both.

 

A pot with space in it cannot say that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I contain the Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite.

 

Those who argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in rooms by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those who kill innocent public by planting bombs.

 

Man is just like the Clay pot. He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies ) with which a human soul in enveloped with.

 

Mind has got nothing solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just mind was the criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ? Mind is just one of the "helpers" in this cause.

 

Moksha is not a mental state of mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved". Moksha is not for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses helping for this cause as mentioned once again.

 

So let us keep the mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with Moksha and the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this.

 

Please nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). Too much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with Moksha is what my mind believes in.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Bhaskar Ji,

 

Really Mind Blowing!!:-) thank you for the write-up and sharing your thoughts

 

Regards

 

Chandu2Chill

 

, " bhaskar_jyotish "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

> God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say about

> God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot say

> that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain the

> Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who

> argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in

> a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat

> small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who

> have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in rooms

> by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those who

> kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay pot.

> He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and

> the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot

> here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies )

> with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind was the

> criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind is just

> one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of

> mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha is not

> for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the

> mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved

> " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses

> helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the

> mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate

> together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind

> is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with

> the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with Moksha and

> the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this. Please

> nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may

> not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I

> dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can

> come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). Too

> much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with

> Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

||Jai Ramakrishna||

Dear Bhaskarji,

Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me a sloka from

Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman [i.e.

Parabrahman] as :

" Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

--He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again near/closer, he

is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is within him.

Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort to Shreemat

Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that " Whenever you find

any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to my divine power " [Yat yat

bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba, tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama

tejo-amsa-sambhavam].

For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done something

good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he rapes

someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling milk.

For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his situations have

tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather used to sell his blood,

when he was cheated in his business, to feed his 7 sons & one daughter--he & his

wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly, stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's

point of view, but from a thief's side--It is a compulsion.[Mind you, I am not

supporting the thief].

 

Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five fingers have

5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For

centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way, but could

never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea. Shreemat Bhagavad

Gita---an important text for all religions[not only meant for the followers of

Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed volume of Upanishads, records

basically four ways of achieving Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all

Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.

" Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his name " --Shri

Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its all about

distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to practise

karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj Yoga---it is not easy

in this material world.

Thank you,

Gaurav.

 

, " bhaskar_jyotish "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

> God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say about

> God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot say

> that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain the

> Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who

> argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in

> a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat

> small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who

> have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in rooms

> by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those who

> kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay pot.

> He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and

> the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot

> here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies )

> with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind was the

> criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind is just

> one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of

> mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha is not

> for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the

> mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved

> " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses

> helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the

> mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate

> together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind

> is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with

> the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with Moksha and

> the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this. Please

> nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may

> not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I

> dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can

> come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). Too

> much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with

> Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Gaurav ji,

Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

You must re-read my mail please.

I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare .

I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and why. I am only saying that "I cannot see God in him".

The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita Chapter 10

Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and the radiant Sun among the luminaries... among the Vedas He is Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the great Seers he is Bhrigu.......among the words He is the sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya...........among the celestial sages He is Narada.......among the Siddhas He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the Kamadehnu..............among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of Death)..........

Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna says that among the Daityas "I am the great devotee Prahlada". Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that "wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power" is a misunderstood statement by you.

 

I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa Yoga etc......

Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do you become a Yogi.

In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14,15 and 17 and additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given us the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other ways.

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

, "gaurav.ghosh" <gaurav.ghosh wrote:>> ||Jai Ramakrishna||> Dear Bhaskarji,> Your question as in "God in Man, or Man in God?" reminds me a sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :> "Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike> Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah",> --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is within him.> Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that "Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to my divine power"[Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba, tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam].> For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling milk.> For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly, stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a thief's side--It is a compulsion.[Mind you, I am not supporting the thief].> > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.> Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way, but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea. Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.> "Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his name"--Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.> Thank you,> Gaurav.> > , "bhaskar_jyotish" bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> >> > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say about> > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot say> > that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I contain the> > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who> > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in> > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat> > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who> > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in rooms> > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those who> > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay pot.> > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and> > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot> > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies )> > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing> > solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just mind was the> > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and> > millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ? Mind is just> > one of the "helpers" in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of> > mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved". Moksha is not> > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by> > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the> > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved> > "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses> > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the> > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate> > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind> > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with> > the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with Moksha and> > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this. Please> > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may> > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I> > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can> > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). Too> > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with> > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.> >>

[Guest guest]

||Jai Ramakrishna||

Dear Bhaskarji,

My sincere apologies in the misunderstanding, if it has hurt, my deep regret!

Just as I remind as a quick note from Chapter 18-MokshaYoga of Gita,

" Ishwarah sarvabhutaanaam, hriddeshe-arjuna tisthati,

Bhraamayan sarvabhutaani, yantraaruraani maayayaa|| "

--God dwells in every heart, & controls them, like a machine is controlled by

its owner.

 

" God is within all of us, waiting to be found " .

Thank you,

Gaurav.

 

, " bhaskar_jyotish "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

>

> Dear Gaurav ji,

>

> Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

>

> Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

>

> You must re-read my mail please.

>

> I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare .

>

> I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

>

> I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have made

> it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

>

> I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas whom I

> have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and why. I

> am only saying that " I cannot see God in him " .

>

> The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita

> Chapter 10

>

> Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and the

> radiant Sun among the luminaries... among the Vedas He is Samaveda....

> among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord Siva....

> among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is

> Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the great

> Seers he is Bhrigu.......among the words He is the sacred syllable

> OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya...........among the

> celestial sages He is Narada.......among the Siddhas He is

> Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the

> Kamadehnu..............among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He is

> Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

> Death)..........

> Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners

> (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna

> says that among the Daityas " I am the great devotee Prahlada " .

> Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that " wherever

> any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power " is a

> misunderstood statement by you.

>

> I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You have

> apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I

> mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way

> of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

>

> Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already

> mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa

> Yoga etc......

>

> Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state in

> Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

>

> The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior even

> to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those who

> perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do you

> become a Yogi.

>

> In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14,15 and 17 and

> additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given us

> the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

>

> I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other

> ways.

>

> best wishes,

>

> Bhaskar.

, " gaurav.ghosh "

> <gaurav.ghosh@> wrote:

> >

> > ||Jai Ramakrishna||

> > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me a sloka

> from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman

> [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > " Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

> > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

> near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is

> within him.

> > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort

> to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that

> " Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to

> my divine power " [Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba,

> tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam].

> > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done

> something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he

> rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling

> milk.

> > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his

> situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather

> used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his

> 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly,

> stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

> thief's side--It is a compulsion.[Mind you, I am not supporting the

> thief].

> >

> > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five

> fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For

> centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way, but

> could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea.

> Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only

> meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed

> volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

> Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.

> > " Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his

> name " --Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its

> all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to

> practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

> Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > Thank you,

> > Gaurav.

> >

> > , " bhaskar_jyotish "

> bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > >

> > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say

> about

> > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot

> say

> > > that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain the

> > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who

> > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God

> in

> > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat

> > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who

> > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in

> rooms

> > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those

> who

> > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay

> pot.

> > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed

> and

> > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot

> > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies

> )

> > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> > > solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind was

> the

> > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> > > millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind is

> just

> > > one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of

> > > mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha is

> not

> > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because

> the

> > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved

> > > " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses

> > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the

> > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not

> resonate

> > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others

> mind

> > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy

> with

> > > the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with Moksha

> and

> > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this.

> Please

> > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and

> may

> > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget.

> I

> > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can

> > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types).

> Too

> > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do

> with

> > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji,

Dandavat pranams, what a beautiful email. God bless you...

 

hari smaraNs,

prANadAsa

 

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 8:16 AM, bhaskar_jyotish <bhaskar_jyotish

> wrote:

 

>

>

> Dear Gaurav ji,

>

> Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

>

> Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

>

> *You must re-read my mail please.*

>

> *I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare .*

>

> *I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.*

>

> *I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have made

> it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.*

>

> *I am not even judging the rapist* or any of the other Karyakartas whom I

> have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and why. *I

> am only saying that " I cannot see God in him " .*

>

> The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the *Bhagavad Gita Chapter

> 10*

>

> *Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and the

> radiant Sun among the luminaries... among the Vedas He is Samaveda.... among

> the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord Siva.... among the

> 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is Mount

> Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the great Seers he

> is Bhrigu.......among the words He is the sacred syllable OM.....among the

> immovable He is the Himalaya...........among the celestial sages He is

> Narada.......among the Siddhas He is Kapil......among elephants He is the

> Airavata, among cows, He is the Kamadehnu..............among serpents He is

> Vasuki, among Manes He is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama

> (God of Death)..........*

> *Nowhere is it mentioned* that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners

> (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna says

> that among the Daityas " I am the great devotee Prahlada " .

>

> Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that " wherever any

> speciality is found consider it as my Divine power " is a misunderstood

> statement by you.

>

> *I have never mentioned* that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You have

> apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I mentioned "

> I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and

> Yoga (of any types). "

>

> *Please check* what I have written in brackets above. I have already

> mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa Yoga

> etc......

>

> Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state in *Chapter

> 6 Shloka 46* which translates as under -

>

> *The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior even to

> those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those who perform

> action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do you become a Yogi.

> *

>

> In the same *Chapter 6, in* *Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14,15 and 17* and

> additionally very important in *Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28* He has given us

> the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

>

> I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other

> ways.

>

> best wishes,

>

> Bhaskar.

, " gaurav.ghosh "

> <gaurav.ghosh wrote:

> >

> > ||Jai Ramakrishna||

> > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me a sloka from

> Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman [i.e.

> Parabrahman] as :

> > " Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

> > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

> near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is

> within him.

> > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort to

> Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that

> " Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to my

> divine power " [Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba,

> tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam].

> > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done

> something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he

> rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling milk.

> > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his situations

> have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather used to sell

> his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his 7 sons & one

> daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly, stealing is a

> wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a thief's side--It is a

> compulsion.[Mind you, I am not supporting the thief].

> >

> > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five

> fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For

> centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way, but

> could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea. Shreemat

> Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only meant for the

> followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed volume of

> Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti,

> Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.

> > " Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his name " --Shri

> Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its all about

> distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to practise

> karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj Yoga---it is not

> easy in this material world.

> > Thank you,

> > Gaurav.

> >

> > , " bhaskar_jyotish "

> bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > >

> > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say about

> > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot say

> > > that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain the

> > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who

> > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in

> > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat

> > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who

> > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in

> rooms

> > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those

> who

> > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay pot.

> > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and

> > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot

> > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies )

> > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> > > solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind was the

> > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> > > millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind is

> just

> > > one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of

> > > mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha is not

> > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the

> > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved

> > > " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses

> > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the

> > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate

> > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind

> > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with

> > > the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with Moksha and

> > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this. Please

> > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may

> > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I

> > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can

> > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types).

> Too

> > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with

> > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Gauravji ji,

 

I have always liked you though we may have lots of differences on many matters, does not matter. Now too I do not wish to argue with you, but just put matters in proper perspective. This will be for your own good which you may realise later when I am no more, since many years elder to you by age, will most probably have to leave much earlier.

 

God does not control anybody's heart, or else a young man like Bhaskar could not fall in Love with every beautiful woman he sets his eyes upon. I mean to say that if God controlled the heart, then there would have been no heartbreaks in the world and every marriage would have been the perfect one.

 

The actual meaning in short for the shloka you presented (Shloka No.61) is -

 

Arjuna, God abides in the heart of all creatures, causing them to revolve according to their Karma by His illusive power, seated as those beings are, in the vehicle of the body.

 

Yes you are so very right that God is within all of us, waiting to be found. (This may seem contradictory to some readers who may cite my previous mail wherein I mentioned that God is not seen among all of us or not within all of us. I confirm that God can only be seen among those who are good, honest ,ethical people (need not necessarily be religious) because these people have opened the pathways for the latent part of God (Atma) to shine with light and become activated due to their satkarmas and way of living, while those who are worst sinners as per the laws of any times, this latent energy of God will lie closed, unavailable to shine or gain access to be spread over that mans psyche, since he is into paap karmas. The inner consciousness which guides us whenever we do any wrong action, is part of God (The part which we say is God within us), or the soul, but if we continously stop listening to it, then it no more guides us the way it must, and when we receive no guidance, or do not listen to this guidance received, we loose the lustre which shows the God in our personality, which is why people like me then say that "I cannot see God in that falana amuk aadmi ".

 

Thank you for providing me an opportunity for some satsanga with you. I get the Khushboo of W.Bengal intellectualism when you write.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

, "gaurav.ghosh" <gaurav.ghosh wrote:>> ||Jai Ramakrishna||> Dear Bhaskarji,> My sincere apologies in the misunderstanding, if it has hurt, my deep regret!> Just as I remind as a quick note from Chapter 18-MokshaYoga of Gita,> "Ishwarah sarvabhutaanaam, hriddeshe-arjuna tisthati,> Bhraamayan sarvabhutaani, yantraaruraani maayayaa||"> --God dwells in every heart, & controls them, like a machine is controlled by its owner.> > "God is within all of us, waiting to be found".> Thank you,> Gaurav.> > , "bhaskar_jyotish" bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> >> > > > Dear Gaurav ji,> > > > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.> > > > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.> > > > You must re-read my mail please.> > > > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare .> > > > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.> > > > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have made> > it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.> > > > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas whom I> > have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and why. I> > am only saying that "I cannot see God in him".> > > > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita> > Chapter 10> > > > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and the> > radiant Sun among the luminaries... among the Vedas He is Samaveda....> > among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord Siva.... > > among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is> > Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the great> > Seers he is Bhrigu.......among the words He is the sacred syllable> > OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya...........among the> > celestial sages He is Narada.......among the Siddhas He is> > Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the> > Kamadehnu..............among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He is> > Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of> > Death)..........> > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners> > (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna> > says that among the Daityas "I am the great devotee Prahlada".> > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that "wherever> > any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power" is a> > misunderstood statement by you.> > > > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You have> > apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I> > mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way> > of Living and Yoga (of any types). "> > > > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already> > mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa> > Yoga etc......> > > > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state in> > Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -> > > > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior even> > to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those who> > perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do you> > become a Yogi.> > > > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14,15 and 17 and> > additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given us> > the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.> > > > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other> > ways.> > > > best wishes,> > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "gaurav.ghosh"> > <gaurav.ghosh@> wrote:> > >> > > ||Jai Ramakrishna||> > > Dear Bhaskarji,> > > Your question as in "God in Man, or Man in God?" reminds me a sloka> > from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman> > [i.e. Parabrahman] as :> > > "Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike> > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah",> > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again> > near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is> > within him.> > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort> > to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that> > "Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to> > my divine power"[Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba,> > tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam].> > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done> > something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he> > rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling> > milk.> > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his> > situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather> > used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his> > 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly,> > stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a> > thief's side--It is a compulsion.[Mind you, I am not supporting the> > thief].> > >> > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five> > fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.> > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For> > centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way, but> > could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea.> > Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only> > meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed> > volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving> > Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.> > > "Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his> > name"--Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its> > all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to> > practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj> > Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.> > > Thank you,> > > Gaurav.> > >> > > , "bhaskar_jyotish"> > bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> > > >> > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say> > about> > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot> > say> > > > that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I contain the> > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who> > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God> > in> > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat> > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those who> > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in> > rooms> > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those> > who> > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay> > pot.> > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed> > and> > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot> > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies> > )> > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing> > > > solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just mind was> > the> > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and> > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ? Mind is> > just> > > > one of the "helpers" in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of> > > > mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved". Moksha is> > not> > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by> > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because> > the> > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved> > > > "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses> > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the> > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not> > resonate> > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others> > mind> > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy> > with> > > > the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with Moksha> > and> > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this.> > Please> > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and> > may> > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget.> > I> > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can> > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types).> > Too> > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do> > with> > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

||Jai Ramakrishna||

Dear Bhaskarji,

//Thank you for providing me an opportunity for some satsanga with you. I get

the Khushboo of W.Bengal intellectualism when you write. //

Ha ha...Shri Ramakrishna used to say, " One drunkard becomes happy to see if

there is another drunkard around " .

Thank you,

Gaurav.

 

, " bhaskar_jyotish "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

> Dear Gauravji ji, I have always liked you though we may have lots of

> differences on many matters, does not matter. Now too I do not wish to

> argue with you, but just put matters in proper perspective. This will be

> for your own good which you may realise later when I am no more, since

> many years elder to you by age, will most probably have to leave much

> earlier. God does not control anybody's heart, or else a young man

> like Bhaskar could not fall in Love with every beautiful woman he sets

> his eyes upon. I mean to say that if God controlled the heart, then

> there would have been no heartbreaks in the world and every marriage

> would have been the perfect one. The actual meaning in short for the

> shloka you presented (Shloka No.61) is - Arjuna, God abides in the

> heart of all creatures, causing them to revolve according to their Karma

> by His illusive power, seated as those beings are, in the vehicle of the

> body. Yes you are so very right that God is within all of us, waiting

> to be found. (This may seem contradictory to some readers who may cite

> my previous mail wherein I mentioned that God is not seen among all of

> us or not within all of us. I confirm that God can only be seen among

> those who are good, honest ,ethical people (need not necessarily be

> religious) because these people have opened the pathways for the latent

> part of God (Atma) to shine with light and become activated due to their

> satkarmas and way of living, while those who are worst sinners as per

> the laws of any times, this latent energy of God will lie closed,

> unavailable to shine or gain access to be spread over that mans psyche,

> since he is into paap karmas. The inner consciousness which guides us

> whenever we do any wrong action, is part of God (The part which we say

> is God within us), or the soul, but if we continously stop listening to

> it, then it no more guides us the way it must, and when we receive no

> guidance, or do not listen to this guidance received, we loose the

> lustre which shows the God in our personality, which is why people like

> me then say that " I cannot see God in that falana amuk aadmi " . Thank

> you for providing me an opportunity for some satsanga with you. I get

> the Khushboo of W.Bengal intellectualism when you write. best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

> , " gaurav.ghosh "

> <gaurav.ghosh@> wrote:

> >

> > ||Jai Ramakrishna||

> > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > My sincere apologies in the misunderstanding, if it has hurt, my deep

> regret!

> > Just as I remind as a quick note from Chapter 18-MokshaYoga of Gita,

> > " Ishwarah sarvabhutaanaam, hriddeshe-arjuna tisthati,

> > Bhraamayan sarvabhutaani, yantraaruraani maayayaa|| "

> > --God dwells in every heart, & controls them, like a machine is

> controlled by its owner.

> >

> > " God is within all of us, waiting to be found " .

> > Thank you,

> > Gaurav.

> >

> > , " bhaskar_jyotish "

> bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Gaurav ji,

> > >

> > > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

> > >

> > > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

> > >

> > > You must re-read my mail please.

> > >

> > > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare

> .

> > >

> > > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

> > >

> > > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have

> made

> > > it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

> > >

> > > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas

> whom I

> > > have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and

> why. I

> > > am only saying that " I cannot see God in him " .

> > >

> > > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita

> > > Chapter 10

> > >

> > > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and

> the

> > > radiant Sun among the luminaries... among the Vedas He is

> Samaveda....

> > > among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord

> Siva....

> > > among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is

> > > Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the

> great

> > > Seers he is Bhrigu.......among the words He is the sacred syllable

> > > OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya...........among the

> > > celestial sages He is Narada.......among the Siddhas He is

> > > Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the

> > > Kamadehnu..............among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He

> is

> > > Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

> > > Death)..........

> > > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners

> > > (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord

> Krishna

> > > says that among the Daityas " I am the great devotee Prahlada " .

> > > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that

> " wherever

> > > any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power " is a

> > > misunderstood statement by you.

> > >

> > > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You

> have

> > > apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I

> > > mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper

> way

> > > of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

> > >

> > > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already

> > > mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga,

> Japa

> > > Yoga etc......

> > >

> > > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state

> in

> > > Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

> > >

> > > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior

> even

> > > to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those

> who

> > > perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do

> you

> > > become a Yogi.

> > >

> > > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14,15 and 17 and

> > > additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given

> us

> > > the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

> > >

> > > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other

> > > ways.

> > >

> > > best wishes,

> > >

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " gaurav.ghosh "

> > > <gaurav.ghosh@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > ||Jai Ramakrishna||

> > > > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > > > Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me a

> sloka

> > > from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the

> SupremeAtman

> > > [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > > > " Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

> > > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

> > > near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything

> is

> > > within him.

> > > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather

> resort

> > > to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says

> that

> > > " Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due

> to

> > > my divine power " [Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba,

> > > tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam].

> > > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have

> done

> > > something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified

> ones he

> > > rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling

> > > milk.

> > > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his

> > > situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My

> grandfather

> > > used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed

> his

> > > 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!].

> Similarly,

> > > stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

> > > thief's side--It is a compulsion.[Mind you, I am not supporting the

> > > thief].

> > > >

> > > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five

> > > fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic.

> For

> > > centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way,

> but

> > > could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea.

> > > Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not

> only

> > > meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the

> compressed

> > > volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

> > > Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.

> > > > " Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his

> > > name " --Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry

> subject--its

> > > all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult

> to

> > > practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

> > > Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > > > Thank you,

> > > > Gaurav.

> > > >

> > > > , " bhaskar_jyotish "

> > > bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say

> > > about

> > > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it

> cannot

> > > say

> > > > > that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain

> the

> > > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those

> who

> > > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see

> God

> > > in

> > > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who

> eat

> > > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those

> who

> > > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted

> in

> > > rooms

> > > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in

> those

> > > who

> > > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the

> Clay

> > > pot.

> > > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is

> removed

> > > and

> > > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay

> pot

> > > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of

> bodies

> > > )

> > > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> > > > > solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind

> was

> > > the

> > > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> > > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind

> is

> > > just

> > > > > one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state

> of

> > > > > mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha

> is

> > > not

> > > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> > > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that

> because

> > > the

> > > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or

> acieved

> > > > > " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the

> senses

> > > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep

> the

> > > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not

> > > resonate

> > > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the

> others

> > > mind

> > > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay

> happy

> > > with

> > > > > the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with

> Moksha

> > > and

> > > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this.

> > > Please

> > > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours,

> and

> > > may

> > > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and

> forget.

> > > I

> > > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha

> can

> > > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any

> types).

> > > Too

> > > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to

> do

> > > with

> > > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji, Just a quick point. There is no question about the centrality of Dharma, the righteous-moral order as you said, I said and as we exchanged on Rama-Ravana previously. However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between the moral and immoral. It is not that God does not say He is in the sinners - God does say so. For instance Sruti vakya goes "vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo... agre vadhaya dure vadhaya..." He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat those cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front and from far. When the Iccha or divine will causes creation, there cannot be sides like His and His opponents, for there is no one opposite to Him - all that is, He is what runs it with His own purpose that He alone

understands - glimpses of which are seen by seers. The question is not whether we should see divine in a person - the secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw lines between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the phenomenal view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a causal view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal and insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called universe or creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or unrighteous deed. However, as I already said the way to gain such a vision, to evolve as a being, righteousness is primary prerequisite. It is to emphasize this that Pauranika literature stresses on righteous behavior, on differentiating good and bad, on being noble.

But that is one phase, in the evolution. In the next, there is no such distinction. Shankarbhaskar_jyotish <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:46:16 PM Re: God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate Thread)

 

 

 

Dear Gaurav ji,

Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

You must re-read my mail please.

I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare .

I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and why. I am only saying that "I cannot see God in him".

The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita Chapter 10

Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and the radiant Sun among the luminaries.. . among the Vedas He is Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the great Seers he is Bhrigu...... .among the words He is the sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya.... .......among the celestial sages He is Narada...... .among the Siddhas He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the Kamadehnu... ......... ..among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of Death)...... ....

Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna says that among the Daityas "I am the great devotee Prahlada". Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that "wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power" is a misunderstood statement by you.

 

I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa Yoga etc......

Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do you become a Yogi.

In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14, 15 and 17 and additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given us the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other ways.

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, "gaurav.ghosh" <gaurav.ghosh@ ...> wrote:>> ||Jai Ramakrishna| |> Dear Bhaskarji,> Your question as in "God in Man, or Man in God?" reminds me a sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :> "Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike> Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah",> --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is within him.> Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that "Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to my divine power"[Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba,

tat-tat-eva- avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam ].> For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling milk.> For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly, stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a thief's side--It is a compulsion.[ Mind you, I am not supporting the thief].> > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.> Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For centuries, various

authorities have tried to establish a single way, but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea. Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/ Rajyoga.> "Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his name"--Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.> Thank you,> Gaurav.> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "bhaskar_jyotish" bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> >> > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say

about> > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot say> > that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I contain the> > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who> > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in> > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat> > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants, in those who> > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in rooms> > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those who> > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay pot.> > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and> > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot> > here represent the sapta

sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies )> > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing> > solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just mind was the> > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and> > millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ? Mind is just> > one of the "helpers" in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of> > mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved". Moksha is not> > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by> > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the> > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved> > "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses> > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the> > mind aside, never

mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate> > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind> > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with> > the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with Moksha and> > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this. Please> > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may> > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I> > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can> > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). Too> > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with> > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.> >>

[Guest guest]

Nice conversation between Bhaskerji & Bhai Gaurav

Good satsang.

 

Love & regards,

Vijay Goel

Jaipur.

 

, " bhaskar_jyotish "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

> Dear Gauravji ji, I have always liked you though we may have lots of

> differences on many matters, does not matter. Now too I do not wish to

> argue with you, but just put matters in proper perspective. This will be

> for your own good which you may realise later when I am no more, since

> many years elder to you by age, will most probably have to leave much

> earlier. God does not control anybody's heart, or else a young man

> like Bhaskar could not fall in Love with every beautiful woman he sets

> his eyes upon. I mean to say that if God controlled the heart, then

> there would have been no heartbreaks in the world and every marriage

> would have been the perfect one. The actual meaning in short for the

> shloka you presented (Shloka No.61) is - Arjuna, God abides in the

> heart of all creatures, causing them to revolve according to their Karma

> by His illusive power, seated as those beings are, in the vehicle of the

> body. Yes you are so very right that God is within all of us, waiting

> to be found. (This may seem contradictory to some readers who may cite

> my previous mail wherein I mentioned that God is not seen among all of

> us or not within all of us. I confirm that God can only be seen among

> those who are good, honest ,ethical people (need not necessarily be

> religious) because these people have opened the pathways for the latent

> part of God (Atma) to shine with light and become activated due to their

> satkarmas and way of living, while those who are worst sinners as per

> the laws of any times, this latent energy of God will lie closed,

> unavailable to shine or gain access to be spread over that mans psyche,

> since he is into paap karmas. The inner consciousness which guides us

> whenever we do any wrong action, is part of God (The part which we say

> is God within us), or the soul, but if we continously stop listening to

> it, then it no more guides us the way it must, and when we receive no

> guidance, or do not listen to this guidance received, we loose the

> lustre which shows the God in our personality, which is why people like

> me then say that " I cannot see God in that falana amuk aadmi " . Thank

> you for providing me an opportunity for some satsanga with you. I get

> the Khushboo of W.Bengal intellectualism when you write. best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

> , " gaurav.ghosh "

> <gaurav.ghosh@> wrote:

> >

> > ||Jai Ramakrishna||

> > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > My sincere apologies in the misunderstanding, if it has hurt, my deep

> regret!

> > Just as I remind as a quick note from Chapter 18-MokshaYoga of Gita,

> > " Ishwarah sarvabhutaanaam, hriddeshe-arjuna tisthati,

> > Bhraamayan sarvabhutaani, yantraaruraani maayayaa|| "

> > --God dwells in every heart, & controls them, like a machine is

> controlled by its owner.

> >

> > " God is within all of us, waiting to be found " .

> > Thank you,

> > Gaurav.

> >

> > , " bhaskar_jyotish "

> bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Gaurav ji,

> > >

> > > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

> > >

> > > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

> > >

> > > You must re-read my mail please.

> > >

> > > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare

> .

> > >

> > > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

> > >

> > > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have

> made

> > > it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

> > >

> > > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas

> whom I

> > > have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and

> why. I

> > > am only saying that " I cannot see God in him " .

> > >

> > > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita

> > > Chapter 10

> > >

> > > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and

> the

> > > radiant Sun among the luminaries... among the Vedas He is

> Samaveda....

> > > among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord

> Siva....

> > > among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is

> > > Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the

> great

> > > Seers he is Bhrigu.......among the words He is the sacred syllable

> > > OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya...........among the

> > > celestial sages He is Narada.......among the Siddhas He is

> > > Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the

> > > Kamadehnu..............among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He

> is

> > > Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

> > > Death)..........

> > > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners

> > > (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord

> Krishna

> > > says that among the Daityas " I am the great devotee Prahlada " .

> > > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that

> " wherever

> > > any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power " is a

> > > misunderstood statement by you.

> > >

> > > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You

> have

> > > apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I

> > > mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper

> way

> > > of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

> > >

> > > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already

> > > mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga,

> Japa

> > > Yoga etc......

> > >

> > > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state

> in

> > > Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

> > >

> > > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior

> even

> > > to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those

> who

> > > perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do

> you

> > > become a Yogi.

> > >

> > > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14,15 and 17 and

> > > additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given

> us

> > > the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

> > >

> > > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other

> > > ways.

> > >

> > > best wishes,

> > >

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " gaurav.ghosh "

> > > <gaurav.ghosh@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > ||Jai Ramakrishna||

> > > > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > > > Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me a

> sloka

> > > from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the

> SupremeAtman

> > > [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > > > " Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

> > > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

> > > near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything

> is

> > > within him.

> > > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather

> resort

> > > to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says

> that

> > > " Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due

> to

> > > my divine power " [Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba,

> > > tat-tat-eva-avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam].

> > > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have

> done

> > > something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified

> ones he

> > > rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling

> > > milk.

> > > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his

> > > situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My

> grandfather

> > > used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed

> his

> > > 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!].

> Similarly,

> > > stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

> > > thief's side--It is a compulsion.[Mind you, I am not supporting the

> > > thief].

> > > >

> > > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five

> > > fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic.

> For

> > > centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way,

> but

> > > could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea.

> > > Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not

> only

> > > meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the

> compressed

> > > volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

> > > Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/Rajyoga.

> > > > " Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his

> > > name " --Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry

> subject--its

> > > all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult

> to

> > > practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

> > > Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > > > Thank you,

> > > > Gaurav.

> > > >

> > > > , " bhaskar_jyotish "

> > > bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say

> > > about

> > > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it

> cannot

> > > say

> > > > > that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain

> the

> > > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those

> who

> > > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see

> God

> > > in

> > > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who

> eat

> > > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,in those

> who

> > > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted

> in

> > > rooms

> > > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in

> those

> > > who

> > > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the

> Clay

> > > pot.

> > > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is

> removed

> > > and

> > > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay

> pot

> > > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of

> bodies

> > > )

> > > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> > > > > solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind

> was

> > > the

> > > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> > > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind

> is

> > > just

> > > > > one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state

> of

> > > > > mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha

> is

> > > not

> > > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> > > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that

> because

> > > the

> > > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or

> acieved

> > > > > " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the

> senses

> > > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep

> the

> > > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not

> > > resonate

> > > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the

> others

> > > mind

> > > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay

> happy

> > > with

> > > > > the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with

> Moksha

> > > and

> > > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this.

> > > Please

> > > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours,

> and

> > > may

> > > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and

> forget.

> > > I

> > > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha

> can

> > > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any

> types).

> > > Too

> > > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to

> do

> > > with

> > > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

 

// For instance Sruti vakya goes "vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo... agre vadhaya dure vadhaya..." He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat those cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front and from far. //

 

I have not read this therefore not aware.

 

// > The question is not whether we should see divine in a person - the secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw lines between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the phenomenal view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a causal view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal and insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called universe or creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or unrighteous deed. //

 

When normal common - "saadharan" persons-manushyas like me talk, I do not mean "divinity of the saints" to look for. I just mean normal good person, and a bad person in the common parlance and definitions based on the law of the land in the present times, or the times in whose context it is spoken of. You are though right in the real essence of the term, that a person who can see divinity considers right and wrong with a "sama bhava" and not with the views and sight of a common "buddhi" or "saamanya gnana"

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

 

//However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between the moral and immoral.//

 

The Practicability of this suggestion living in this world

 

In material Life, in grihasta ashram, and in this world we have to draw a line for such matters figuratively. If I know a certain boy is immoral and he is my beautiful daughters friend, I will not act "sama" but will make efforts to see that my daughter does not meet this boy more than necessary, and he is not allowed much access to communicate with her. By doing this I do not become less of "Divine" but am just doing my duty, which tooo is a part of Divinity which we are supposed to follow.

 

If one of my astrologer colleagues tells me that "I am sending one client to you and since he is my relative I cannot charge him, but you should, and suggest him a Pooja worth Rs.25000- and pass me 20% as my share, and dont worry he can pay more than this he is a very rich man", I will certainly draw a line between moral and immoral, and not accede to his request and demand, but refuse to do his biddings. This will not make me less divine or reduce my divinity, rather increase it.

 

The actual practicability of this is similiar to what a Sage suggested to a snake - I am sure you have heard this story - Kaato mat, par fufkaaro.

 

For those who have not -

 

There was once a village in which a poisinous snake lived and villagers could not go about their duties comfortably out of fear of this snake. Once a reputed Sage passed through thaty village, so the Headman visited the Sage and narrated his predicament. The Sage assured him, and next day went to the snake and told him, not to disturb the villagers or harm them. The Sage went his way subsequently. The villagers re-assured from next day onwards went about their work and one villager noticed the snake lying quietly in a corner near a hut, and threw a stone on it to provoke him wanting to know whether he was alive or dead. But the snake just moved his body doing nothing. Taking cue the other villagers too threw stones at him, and the snake quietly slid away. In coming days the same incident repeated and the snake never retaliated but simply slid away in face of this torture from the village residents since he had promised the Sage that he will harm no one. One day the Sage returned to that village en route passing and noticed the snake who was lying bruised, hurt and wounded, bleeding all over, and inquired about the sy of his state. The snake replied that he was following only his instructions and nothing else. Then the sage felt remorse and advised him "In this world its good to be good, but not so good that people take advantage of you. You must not bite, but learn to hiss when some body attacks you, so that he backs away out of fear"

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:>> Dear Bhaskar ji, > > Just a quick point. There is no question about the centrality of Dharma, the righteous-moral order as you said, I said and as we exchanged on Rama-Ravana previously. However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between the moral and immoral. It is not that God does not say He is in the sinners - God does say so. For instance Sruti vakya goes "vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo... agre vadhaya dure vadhaya..." He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat those cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front and from far. > > When the Iccha or divine will causes creation, there cannot be sides like His and His opponents, for there is no one opposite to Him - all that is, He is what runs it with His own purpose that He alone understands - glimpses of which are seen by seers. > > > The question is not whether we should see divine in a person - the secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw lines between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the phenomenal view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a causal view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal and insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called universe or creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or unrighteous deed. > > However, as I already said the way to gain such a vision, to evolve as a being, righteousness is primary prerequisite. It is to emphasize this that Pauranika literature stresses on righteous behavior, on differentiating good and bad, on being noble. But that is one phase, in the evolution. In the next, there is no such distinction. > > Shankar> > > > ________________________________> bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish > Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:46:16 PM> Re: God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate Thread)> > > Dear Gaurav ji,> Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.> Now Let me remove some misconceptions.> You must re-read my mail please.> I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare .> I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.> I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.> I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and why. I am only saying that "I cannot see God in him".> The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita Chapter 10> Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and the radiant Sun among the luminaries.. . among the Vedas He is Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati, ...among the great Seers he is Bhrigu...... .among the words He is the sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya.... .......among the celestial sages He is Narada...... .among the Siddhas He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is the Kamadehnu... ......... ..among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of Death)...... ....> Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna says that among the Daityas "I am the great devotee Prahlada". > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that "wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power" is a misunderstood statement by you. > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). " > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa Yoga etc......> Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -> The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do you become a Yogi.> In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14, 15 and 17 and additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given us the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.> I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other ways. > best wishes,> Bhaskar.> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "gaurav.ghosh" <gaurav.ghosh@ ...> wrote:> >> > ||Jai Ramakrishna| |> > Dear Bhaskarji,> > Your question as in "God in Man, or Man in God?" reminds me a sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :> > "Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike> > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah",> > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is within him.> > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna says that "Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to be due to my divine power"[Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva ba, tat-tat-eva- avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam ].> > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have done something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of boiling milk.> > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly, stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a thief's side--It is a compulsion.[ Mind you, I am not supporting the thief].> > > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.> > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic. For centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way, but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea. Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/ Rajyoga.> > "Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his name"--Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.> > Thank you,> > Gaurav.> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "bhaskar_jyotish" bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> > >> > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say about> > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it cannot say> > > that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I contain the> > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those who> > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see God in> > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who eat> > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants, in those who> > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted in rooms> > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in those who> > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the Clay pot.> > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is removed and> > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay pot> > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of bodies )> > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing> > > solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just mind was the> > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and> > > millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ? Mind is just> > > one of the "helpers" in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state of> > > mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved". Moksha is not> > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by> > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that because the> > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or acieved> > > "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the senses> > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep the> > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not resonate> > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the others mind> > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay happy with> > > the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with Moksha and> > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this. Please> > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours, and may> > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and forget. I> > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha can> > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any types). Too> > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to do with> > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Bharadwaj ji,

 

//......... say is that regardless of the previous harm, such illwill

and retaliation will only harm our prospects on karmic terms. .....//

 

Thanks for the clarififcation. I should have known that You will not

talk of smaller octaves but of higher ones.

 

I fully agree with you above.

 

Am sorry for the trouble I have given to make you clarify.

 

regards,

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, ShankaraBharadwaj

Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,

>

> Just to clarify...

>

> There are two things here - one is following one's Dharma, being

Dharmic. What typically is advised in case of sadhakas is to do action,

but not reactions. One should do his Dharma, whether it involves

protecting oneself or one's family or nation. There is no question about

it. For one's own action, there is no doubt about Dharma as the basis.

>

> The second thing is about the natural illwill that develops when we

encounter someone who had previously harmed us. It is this context that

I am referring to. In this case, what elders say is that regardless of

the previous harm, such illwill and retaliation will only harm our

prospects on karmic terms. This has nothing to do with trying to

understand the motives of people or being cautious with them.

>

> Shankar

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish

>

> Sunday, September 6, 2009 12:51:08 AM

> Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

(Seperate Thread)

>

>

>

> Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

>

> //However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between the

moral and immoral.//

>

> The Practicability of this suggestion living in this world

>

> In material Life, in grihasta ashram, and in this world we have to

draw a line for such matters figuratively. If I know a certain boy is

immoral and he is my beautiful daughters friend, I will not act " sama "

but will make efforts to see that my daughter does not meet this boy

more than necessary, and he is not allowed much access to communicate

with her. By doing this I do not become less of " Divine " but am just

doing my duty, which tooo is a part of Divinity which we are supposed to

follow.

>

> If one of my astrologer colleagues tells me that " I am sending one

client to you and since he is my relative I cannot charge him, but you

should, and suggest him a Pooja worth Rs.25000- and pass me 20% as my

share, and dont worry he can pay more than this he is a very rich man " ,

I will certainly draw a line between moral and immoral, and not accede

to his request and demand, but refuse to do his biddings. This will not

make me less divine or reduce my divinity, rather increase it.

>

> The actual practicability of this is similiar to what a Sage suggested

to a snake - I am sure you have heard this story - Kaato mat, par

fufkaaro.

>

> For those who have not -

>

> There was once a village in which a poisinous snake lived and

villagers could not go about their duties comfortably out of fear of

this snake. Once a reputed Sage passed through thaty village, so the

Headman visited the Sage and narrated his predicament. The Sage assured

him, and next day went to the snake and told him, not to disturb the

villagers or harm them. The Sage went his way subsequently. The

villagers re-assured from next day onwards went about their work and one

villager noticed the snake lying quietly in a corner near a hut, and

threw a stone on it to provoke him wanting to know whether he was alive

or dead. But the snake just moved his body doing nothing. Taking cue the

other villagers too threw stones at him, and the snake quietly slid

away. In coming days the same incident repeated and the snake never

retaliated but simply slid away in face of this torture from the village

residents since he had promised the Sage that he will harm no one.

> One day the Sage returned to that village en route passing and noticed

the snake who was lying bruised, hurt and wounded, bleeding all over,

and inquired about the sy of his state. The snake replied that he was

following only his instructions and nothing else. Then the sage felt

remorse and advised him " In this world its good to be good, but not so

good that people take advantage of you. You must not bite, but learn to

hiss when some body attacks you, so that he backs away out of fear "

>

> best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj

Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > Just a quick point. There is no question about the centrality of

Dharma, the righteous-moral order as you said, I said and as we

exchanged on Rama-Ravana previously. However, when we talk of divinity

there cannot be line between the moral and immoral. It is not that God

does not say He is in the sinners - God does say so. For instance Sruti

vakya goes " vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo. .. agre vadhaya

dure vadhaya... " He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat those

cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front and

from far.

> >

> > When the Iccha or divine will causes creation, there cannot be sides

like His and His opponents, for there is no one opposite to Him - all

that is, He is what runs it with His own purpose that He alone

understands - glimpses of which are seen by seers.

> >

> >

> > The question is not whether we should see divine in a person - the

secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw lines

between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the phenomenal

view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a causal

view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal and

insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called universe or

creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the

purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or

unrighteous deed.

> >

> > However, as I already said the way to gain such a vision, to evolve

as a being, righteousness is primary prerequisite. It is to emphasize

this that Pauranika literature stresses on righteous behavior, on

differentiating good and bad, on being noble. But that is one phase, in

the evolution. In the next, there is no such distinction.

> >

> > Shankar

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:46:16 PM

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

(Seperate Thread)

> >

> >

> > Dear Gaurav ji,

> > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

> > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

> > You must re-read my mail please.

> > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families welfare

..

> > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

> > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and have

made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

> > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas

whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what and

why. I am only saying that " I cannot see God in him " .

> > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita

Chapter 10

> > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and

the radiant Sun among the luminaries.. . among the Vedas He is

Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is

Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the

mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati,

....among the great Seers he is Bhrigu...... .among the words He is the

sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya....

........among the celestial sages He is Narada...... .among the Siddhas

He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is

the Kamadehnu... ......... ..among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes He

is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

Death)...... ....

> > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the sinners

(rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna

says that among the Daityas " I am the great devotee Prahlada " .

> > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that

" wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power " is a

misunderstood statement by you.

> > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You

have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I

mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way

of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

> > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already

mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Japa

Yoga etc......

> > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state

in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

> > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior

even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to those

who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do

you become a Yogi.

> > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14, 15 and 17 and

additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given us

the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

> > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the other

ways.

> > best wishes,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " gaurav.ghosh "

<gaurav.ghosh@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > ||Jai Ramakrishna| |

> > > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > > Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me a

sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the

SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > > " Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

> > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is

within him.

> > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather

resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna

says that " Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to

be due to my divine power " [Yat yat bibhutimat satwam shreemat-urjitameva

ba, tat-tat-eva- avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam ].

> > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must have

done something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified

ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of

boiling milk.

> > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his

situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My grandfather

used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed his

7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!]. Similarly,

stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

thief's side--It is a compulsion.[ Mind you, I am not supporting the

thief].

> > >

> > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as five

fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable topic.

For centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single way,

but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same sea.

Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only

meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the compressed

volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/ Rajyoga.

> > > " Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his

name " --Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry subject--its

all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to

practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > > Thank you,

> > > Gaurav.

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

" bhaskar_jyotish " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people say

about

> > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it

cannot say

> > > > that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I contain

the

> > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite. Those

who

> > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they see

God in

> > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those who

eat

> > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants, in

those who

> > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men closeted

in rooms

> > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in

those who

> > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the

Clay pot.

> > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is

removed and

> > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The clay

pot

> > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of

bodies )

> > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got nothing

> > > > solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just mind

was the

> > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group and

> > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment " ? Mind

is just

> > > > one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental state

of

> > > > mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " . Moksha

is not

> > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions by

> > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that

because the

> > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or

acieved

> > > > " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the

senses

> > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep

the

> > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not

resonate

> > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the

others mind

> > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay

happy with

> > > > the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do with

Moksha and

> > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know this.

Please

> > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours,

and may

> > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and

forget. I

> > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that Moksha

can

> > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any

types). Too

> > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to

do with

> > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,Absolutely my pleasure that you liked it. The very nature of these topics is such, exchanges on them are so nice. I was actually drafting a follow-up on the previous post, here it is - With respect to the different states of the example, we can map how Dharma for an individual is determined. In all those levels, only the first is completely Adharmic - all the other eight, are not totally Adharma. Even the second is not condemned as Adharma, in acute situations. How Dharma is determined, what kind of impression is left by a a choice of action from these levels, is dependent on what stage of evolution a person is and what is the circumstance of the action. For instance, if a person's stature is such that he usually retaliates, a moment of non-retaliation will

leave a good impression on him. And anything lower than what his personality suggests, such as unprovoked harming, will create a negative impression on him. For a more evolved person, retaliating itself creates a negative impression. For a more evolved person, even having illwill without harming can create a negative impression. But as such, there is no Adharma in either of these - thus, though universal, Dharma and Karma samskara that ensues from it is yet contextual. The revenge taken by Pandavas did not put them in hell, but it was sufficient only to take them to heaven for all their righteousness - not to liberate them. On the other hand, a total surrender done by Bhishma, no matter what side he fell in, gave him liberation. It depends on how deep one is evolved to look into his antahkarana and how many kosas have veiled his self. It depends on how much of a pasu he is and how much of a devata he is, that his karma samskaras are, what the

intellectual stature of the person is. Thus in the whole realm of possibilities, few are Adharma, the others though not adharmic, leave different kinds of impressions on doers at different levels of evolution. The same choice of action will leave different impressions on doers at different stages. To understand the nature of these impressions, to make pure consciousness (Ganga) flow over them and cleanse them, in the conscient first (earth-consciousness) and subconscient next (patala, where the ashes of previous lives are) is what (karma) yoga is all about. It is when the avatarana of divine consciousness is down to the subconscient, that the evolution is complete. Until then man goes higher and keeps falling, goes in cycles. (Ganga-avatarana of Ramayana is my favorite story as it is a beautiful description of the descent of divine Truth consciousness over

earth-consciousness and the sub-conscious, thus divinizing the whole being). Shankarbhaskar_jyotish <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 4:47:49 PM Re: God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate Thread)

 

 

 

Dear Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

 

What a beautiful mail. All Golden words . I made my wife read this,

because we just discussing last night uptil 3.00am on karma and such

topics since our son was keeping up late at night and we too were not

getting sleep. In fact there is a family member with whom I was bearing

ill will due to his atrocities on us, and we were discussing about him

too last night.

 

At the moment I am on No.6 and hope to reach the other levels gradually

through constant introspection daily.

 

But this does not mean that I cannot jump back to the previous

categories on provocations with different people and in different

situations.

 

The Lifes whole struggle is to reach this No.9 level, mentioned in your

mail, and to keep that level maintained thought thereafter in all

situations and with all.

 

......not having illwill would liberate us from the repeated emotions,

and instead let us divert our thoughts to something positive that

improve our lives....... ..

 

The above was very true fact mentioned by you, which most of us have to

understand and live upto reach and maintain cautiously.

 

I have really enjoyed my exchanges wth you, and learnt a great deal for

further improvement, and thank you profusely for the same.

 

best wishes,

 

Bhaskar.

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj

Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

>

> No not at all. In fact I am talking of the practical side, and not the

higher - there are people who

>

> 1. harm others to further their cause

> 2. harm others for their necessities

> 3. do not harm others even for their necessities

> 4. retaliate highly when they are harmed

> 5. retaliate occasionally when they are harmed

> 6. do not retaliate, only prevent further harm but keep illwill

> 7. do not retaliate, prevent further harm and do not keep illwill

> 8. do not retaliate and ignore the previous harm

> 9. do not retaliate and forgive the man who harmed them

>

> The first two are about people who harm others and do not need to be

discussed. But one would actually move down these to 9, eventually.

However there is a huge difference between not bearing illwill for a man

who harmed us and forgiving him. One does not need to have illwill,

since we believe each one's karma takes its course we need not

interfere. There we are basically leaving it to destiny to figure out

what to do with the man, and we try to fix our life. On the other hand

forgiving is quite different, where we take it on ourselves to condone

the mistake - which means we are owning the negative effects of his

actions and ready to bear its fruits - this is what godly men do. It is

not a human quality, it is a godly quality.

>

> What I was saying, is what is humanly practical and wise - because not

having illwill would liberate us from the repeated emotions, and instead

let us divert our thoughts to something positive that improve our lives.

>

> Shankar

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> Monday, September 7, 2009 10:18:45 AM

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

(Seperate Thread)

>

>

>

> Dear Shri Bharadwaj ji,

>

> //......... say is that regardless of the previous harm, such illwill

> and retaliation will only harm our prospects on karmic terms. .....//

>

> Thanks for the clarififcation. I should have known that You will not

> talk of smaller octaves but of higher ones.

>

> I fully agree with you above.

>

> Am sorry for the trouble I have given to make you clarify.

>

> regards,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj

> Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > Just to clarify...

> >

> > There are two things here - one is following one's Dharma, being

> Dharmic. What typically is advised in case of sadhakas is to do

action,

> but not reactions. One should do his Dharma, whether it involves

> protecting oneself or one's family or nation. There is no question

about

> it. For one's own action, there is no doubt about Dharma as the basis.

> >

> > The second thing is about the natural illwill that develops when we

> encounter someone who had previously harmed us. It is this context

that

> I am referring to. In this case, what elders say is that regardless of

> the previous harm, such illwill and retaliation will only harm our

> prospects on karmic terms. This has nothing to do with trying to

> understand the motives of people or being cautious with them.

> >

> > Shankar

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > Sunday, September 6, 2009 12:51:08 AM

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

> (Seperate Thread)

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

> >

> > //However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between the

> moral and immoral.//

> >

> > The Practicability of this suggestion living in this world

> >

> > In material Life, in grihasta ashram, and in this world we have to

> draw a line for such matters figuratively. If I know a certain boy is

> immoral and he is my beautiful daughters friend, I will not act "sama"

> but will make efforts to see that my daughter does not meet this boy

> more than necessary, and he is not allowed much access to communicate

> with her. By doing this I do not become less of "Divine" but am just

> doing my duty, which tooo is a part of Divinity which we are supposed

to

> follow.

> >

> > If one of my astrologer colleagues tells me that "I am sending one

> client to you and since he is my relative I cannot charge him, but you

> should, and suggest him a Pooja worth Rs.25000- and pass me 20% as my

> share, and dont worry he can pay more than this he is a very rich

man",

> I will certainly draw a line between moral and immoral, and not accede

> to his request and demand, but refuse to do his biddings. This will

not

> make me less divine or reduce my divinity, rather increase it.

> >

> > The actual practicability of this is similiar to what a Sage

suggested

> to a snake - I am sure you have heard this story - Kaato mat, par

> fufkaaro.

> >

> > For those who have not -

> >

> > There was once a village in which a poisinous snake lived and

> villagers could not go about their duties comfortably out of fear of

> this snake. Once a reputed Sage passed through thaty village, so the

> Headman visited the Sage and narrated his predicament. The Sage

assured

> him, and next day went to the snake and told him, not to disturb the

> villagers or harm them. The Sage went his way subsequently. The

> villagers re-assured from next day onwards went about their work and

one

> villager noticed the snake lying quietly in a corner near a hut, and

> threw a stone on it to provoke him wanting to know whether he was

alive

> or dead. But the snake just moved his body doing nothing. Taking cue

the

> other villagers too threw stones at him, and the snake quietly slid

> away. In coming days the same incident repeated and the snake never

> retaliated but simply slid away in face of this torture from the

village

> residents since he had promised the Sage that he will harm no one.

> > One day the Sage returned to that village en route passing and

noticed

> the snake who was lying bruised, hurt and wounded, bleeding all over,

> and inquired about the sy of his state. The snake replied that he was

> following only his instructions and nothing else. Then the sage felt

> remorse and advised him "In this world its good to be good, but not so

> good that people take advantage of you. You must not bite, but learn

to

> hiss when some body attacks you, so that he backs away out of fear"

> >

> > best wishes,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> > ancient_indian_ astrology,

ShankaraBharadwaj

> Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > >

> > > Just a quick point. There is no question about the centrality of

> Dharma, the righteous-moral order as you said, I said and as we

> exchanged on Rama-Ravana previously. However, when we talk of divinity

> there cannot be line between the moral and immoral. It is not that God

> does not say He is in the sinners - God does say so. For instance

Sruti

> vakya goes "vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo. .. agre

vadhaya

> dure vadhaya..." He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat those

> cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front and

> from far.

> > >

> > > When the Iccha or divine will causes creation, there cannot be

sides

> like His and His opponents, for there is no one opposite to Him - all

> that is, He is what runs it with His own purpose that He alone

> understands - glimpses of which are seen by seers.

> > >

> > >

> > > The question is not whether we should see divine in a person - the

> secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw lines

> between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the

phenomenal

> view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a causal

> view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal and

> insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called universe

or

> creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the

> purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or

> unrighteous deed.

> > >

> > > However, as I already said the way to gain such a vision, to

evolve

> as a being, righteousness is primary prerequisite. It is to emphasize

> this that Pauranika literature stresses on righteous behavior, on

> differentiating good and bad, on being noble. But that is one phase,

in

> the evolution. In the next, there is no such distinction.

> > >

> > > Shankar

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > > Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:46:16 PM

> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God

?

> (Seperate Thread)

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Gaurav ji,

> > > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh Upanishad.

> > > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

> > > You must re-read my mail please.

> > > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families

welfare

> .

> > > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

> > > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and

have

> made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of pleasure.

> > > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas

> whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what

and

> why. I am only saying that "I cannot see God in him".

> > > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad Gita

> Chapter 10

> > > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi and

> the radiant Sun among the luminaries.. . among the Vedas He is

> Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He is

> Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the

> mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati,

> ...among the great Seers he is Bhrigu...... .among the words He is the

> sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya....

> .......among the celestial sages He is Narada...... .among the Siddhas

> He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He is

> the Kamadehnu... ......... ..among serpents He is Vasuki, among Manes

He

> is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

> Death)...... ....

> > > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the

sinners

> (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord Krishna

> says that among the Daityas "I am the great devotee Prahlada".

> > > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that

> "wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power" is a

> misunderstood statement by you.

> > > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha. You

> have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I

> mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper way

> of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

> > > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have already

> mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga,

Japa

> Yoga etc......

> > > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme state

> in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

> > > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as superior

> even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to

those

> who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna , do

> you become a Yogi.

> > > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14, 15 and 17 and

> additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given

us

> the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

> > > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the

other

> ways.

> > > best wishes,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "gaurav.ghosh"

> <gaurav.ghosh@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > ||Jai Ramakrishna| |

> > > > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > > > Your question as in "God in Man, or Man in God?" reminds me a

> sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the

> SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > > > "Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah",

> > > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

> near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything is

> within him.

> > > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather

> resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna

> says that "Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that to

> be due to my divine power"[Yat yat bibhutimat satwam

shreemat-urjitameva

> ba, tat-tat-eva- avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam ].

> > > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must

have

> done something good in his life, but all his good works are nullified

> ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of

> boiling milk.

> > > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his

> situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My

grandfather

> used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed

his

> 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!].

Similarly,

> stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

> thief's side--It is a compulsion.[ Mind you, I am not supporting the

> thief].

> > > >

> > > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as

five

> fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable

topic.

> For centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single

way,

> but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same

sea.

> Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not only

> meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the

compressed

> volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

> Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/ Rajyoga.

> > > > "Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his

> name"--Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry

subject--its

> all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult to

> practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

> Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > > > Thank you,

> > > > Gaurav.

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> "bhaskar_jyotish" bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people

say

> about

> > > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it

> cannot say

> > > > > that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I

contain

> the

> > > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite.

Those

> who

> > > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they

see

> God in

> > > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those

who

> eat

> > > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants, in

> those who

> > > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men

closeted

> in rooms

> > > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money, in

> those who

> > > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the

> Clay pot.

> > > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is

> removed and

> > > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The

clay

> pot

> > > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths of

> bodies )

> > > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got

nothing

> > > > > solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just mind

> was the

> > > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group

and

> > > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ?

Mind

> is just

> > > > > one of the "helpers" in this cause. Moksha is not a mental

state

> of

> > > > > mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved". Moksha

> is not

> > > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see illusions

by

> > > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that

> because the

> > > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or

> acieved

> > > > > "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the

> senses

> > > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us keep

> the

> > > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does not

> resonate

> > > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the

> others mind

> > > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay

> happy with

> > > > > the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with

> Moksha and

> > > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know

this.

> Please

> > > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then yours,

> and may

> > > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and

> forget. I

> > > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that

Moksha

> can

> > > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any

> types). Too

> > > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing to

> do with

> > > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankar ji,

 

i was also impressed by your distinction of righteous karma / karma

inspired by dharma as being most important part of our lives.

 

Many masters talk of the imprtance of the present moment...and the need

to respond in the moment with consciousness and responsibility.

 

Maybe there are stages of consciousness as we evolve. If we can evolve

to think we are part of everything around us, we will naturally care for

everything around us, isn't it? The moment we stop thinking of just i,

me, myself and think more about the " others " as part of us, the actions

that result would be dharmic (perhaps).

 

When Arjun hesitated to fight his kin, did he not see himself in the

others? But then he was reminded of his duty as a kshatriya...and told

to be detached.

 

The Mahabharata poses many controversial questions. Many of the

" dharmic " actions could spring from compassion, identification with the

other.......but probably the secret lies to respond in the moment in the

" best " manner possible to the " other " without identifying oneself with

the action...

 

To get outside one's comfort zone to act for the other is one

challenge...(isn't dharmic action often uncomfortable?)

 

Not to identify oneself with the the other and not to identify oneself

with the action is a bigger challenge...

 

isn't it?

 

Best regards,

 

vinita

 

 

, " bhaskar_jyotish "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

>

> Dear Bharadwaj ji,

>

> I have nothing left to comment on your mail, as it is the absolute

> truth. I can just surrender to your mail taking in each statement as

> what it should be.

>

> Our state of evolution has to be improved constantly is what I

> understand and will strive towards the same, with association of good

> people like yourself.

>

> Love and regards,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , ShankaraBharadwaj

> Khandavalli shankarabharadwaj@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > Absolutely my pleasure that you liked it. The very nature of these

> topics is such, exchanges on them are so nice. I was actually drafting

a

> follow-up on the previous post, here it is -

> >

> > With respect to the different states of the example, we can map how

> Dharma for an individual is determined. In all those levels, only the

> first is completely Adharmic - all the other eight, are not totally

> Adharma. Even the second is not condemned as Adharma, in acute

> situations. How Dharma is determined, what kind of impression is left

by

> a a choice of action from these levels, is dependent on what stage of

> evolution a person is and what is the circumstance of the action.

> >

> > For instance, if a person's stature is such that he usually

> retaliates, a moment of non-retaliation will leave a good impression

on

> him. And anything lower than what his personality suggests, such as

> unprovoked harming, will create a negative impression on him. For a

more

> evolved person, retaliating itself creates a negative impression. For

a

> more evolved person, even having illwill without harming can create a

> negative impression. But as such, there is no Adharma in either of

these

> - thus, though universal, Dharma and Karma samskara that ensues from

it

> is yet contextual. The revenge taken by Pandavas did not put them in

> hell, but it was sufficient only to take them to heaven for all their

> righteousness - not to liberate them. On the other hand, a total

> surrender done by Bhishma, no matter what side he fell in, gave him

> liberation. It depends on how deep one is evolved to look into his

> antahkarana and how many kosas have veiled his self. It depends on

> > how much of a pasu he is and how much of a devata he is, that his

> karma samskaras are, what the intellectual stature of the person is.

> >

> >

> > Thus in the whole realm of possibilities, few are Adharma, the

others

> though not adharmic, leave different kinds of impressions on doers at

> different levels of evolution. The same choice of action will leave

> different impressions on doers at different stages. To understand the

> nature of these impressions, to make pure consciousness (Ganga) flow

> over them and cleanse them, in the conscient first

(earth-consciousness)

> and subconscient next (patala, where the ashes of previous lives are)

is

> what (karma) yoga is all about. It is when the avatarana of divine

> consciousness is down to the subconscient, that the evolution is

> complete. Until then man goes higher and keeps falling, goes in

cycles.

> (Ganga-avatarana of Ramayana is my favorite story as it is a beautiful

> description of the descent of divine Truth consciousness over

> earth-consciousness and the sub-conscious, thus divinizing the whole

> being).

> >

> > Shankar

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@

> >

> > Monday, September 7, 2009 4:47:49 PM

> > Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

> (Seperate Thread)

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

> >

> > What a beautiful mail. All Golden words . I made my wife read this,

> > because we just discussing last night uptil 3.00am on karma and such

> > topics since our son was keeping up late at night and we too were

not

> > getting sleep. In fact there is a family member with whom I was

> bearing

> > ill will due to his atrocities on us, and we were discussing about

him

> > too last night.

> >

> > At the moment I am on No.6 and hope to reach the other levels

> gradually

> > through constant introspection daily.

> >

> > But this does not mean that I cannot jump back to the previous

> > categories on provocations with different people and in different

> > situations.

> >

> > The Lifes whole struggle is to reach this No.9 level, mentioned in

> your

> > mail, and to keep that level maintained thought thereafter in all

> > situations and with all.

> >

> > .....not having illwill would liberate us from the repeated

emotions,

> > and instead let us divert our thoughts to something positive that

> > improve our lives....... ..

> >

> > The above was very true fact mentioned by you, which most of us have

> to

> > understand and live upto reach and maintain cautiously.

> >

> > I have really enjoyed my exchanges wth you, and learnt a great deal

> for

> > further improvement, and thank you profusely for the same.

> >

> > best wishes,

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > ancient_indian_ astrology,

ShankaraBharadwaj

> > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > >

> > > No not at all. In fact I am talking of the practical side, and not

> the

> > higher - there are people who

> > >

> > > 1. harm others to further their cause

> > > 2. harm others for their necessities

> > > 3. do not harm others even for their necessities

> > > 4. retaliate highly when they are harmed

> > > 5. retaliate occasionally when they are harmed

> > > 6. do not retaliate, only prevent further harm but keep illwill

> > > 7. do not retaliate, prevent further harm and do not keep illwill

> > > 8. do not retaliate and ignore the previous harm

> > > 9. do not retaliate and forgive the man who harmed them

> > >

> > > The first two are about people who harm others and do not need to

be

> > discussed. But one would actually move down these to 9, eventually.

> > However there is a huge difference between not bearing illwill for a

> man

> > who harmed us and forgiving him. One does not need to have illwill,

> > since we believe each one's karma takes its course we need not

> > interfere. There we are basically leaving it to destiny to figure

out

> > what to do with the man, and we try to fix our life. On the other

hand

> > forgiving is quite different, where we take it on ourselves to

condone

> > the mistake - which means we are owning the negative effects of his

> > actions and ready to bear its fruits - this is what godly men do. It

> is

> > not a human quality, it is a godly quality.

> > >

> > > What I was saying, is what is humanly practical and wise - because

> not

> > having illwill would liberate us from the repeated emotions, and

> instead

> > let us divert our thoughts to something positive that improve our

> lives.

> > >

> > > Shankar

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > > Monday, September 7, 2009 10:18:45 AM

> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God

?

> > (Seperate Thread)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Bharadwaj ji,

> > >

> > > //......... say is that regardless of the previous harm, such

> illwill

> > > and retaliation will only harm our prospects on karmic terms.

> .....//

> > >

> > > Thanks for the clarififcation. I should have known that You will

not

> > > talk of smaller octaves but of higher ones.

> > >

> > > I fully agree with you above.

> > >

> > > Am sorry for the trouble I have given to make you clarify.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> ShankaraBharadwaj

> > > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Just to clarify...

> > > >

> > > > There are two things here - one is following one's Dharma, being

> > > Dharmic. What typically is advised in case of sadhakas is to do

> > action,

> > > but not reactions. One should do his Dharma, whether it involves

> > > protecting oneself or one's family or nation. There is no question

> > about

> > > it. For one's own action, there is no doubt about Dharma as the

> basis.

> > > >

> > > > The second thing is about the natural illwill that develops when

> we

> > > encounter someone who had previously harmed us. It is this context

> > that

> > > I am referring to. In this case, what elders say is that

regardless

> of

> > > the previous harm, such illwill and retaliation will only harm our

> > > prospects on karmic terms. This has nothing to do with trying to

> > > understand the motives of people or being cautious with them.

> > > >

> > > > Shankar

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > > > Sunday, September 6, 2009 12:51:08 AM

> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in

God

> ?

> > > (Seperate Thread)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

> > > >

> > > > //However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between

> the

> > > moral and immoral.//

> > > >

> > > > The Practicability of this suggestion living in this world

> > > >

> > > > In material Life, in grihasta ashram, and in this world we have

to

> > > draw a line for such matters figuratively. If I know a certain boy

> is

> > > immoral and he is my beautiful daughters friend, I will not act

> " sama "

> > > but will make efforts to see that my daughter does not meet this

boy

> > > more than necessary, and he is not allowed much access to

> communicate

> > > with her. By doing this I do not become less of " Divine " but am

just

> > > doing my duty, which tooo is a part of Divinity which we are

> supposed

> > to

> > > follow.

> > > >

> > > > If one of my astrologer colleagues tells me that " I am sending

one

> > > client to you and since he is my relative I cannot charge him, but

> you

> > > should, and suggest him a Pooja worth Rs.25000- and pass me 20% as

> my

> > > share, and dont worry he can pay more than this he is a very rich

> > man " ,

> > > I will certainly draw a line between moral and immoral, and not

> accede

> > > to his request and demand, but refuse to do his biddings. This

will

> > not

> > > make me less divine or reduce my divinity, rather increase it.

> > > >

> > > > The actual practicability of this is similiar to what a Sage

> > suggested

> > > to a snake - I am sure you have heard this story - Kaato mat, par

> > > fufkaaro.

> > > >

> > > > For those who have not -

> > > >

> > > > There was once a village in which a poisinous snake lived and

> > > villagers could not go about their duties comfortably out of fear

of

> > > this snake. Once a reputed Sage passed through thaty village, so

the

> > > Headman visited the Sage and narrated his predicament. The Sage

> > assured

> > > him, and next day went to the snake and told him, not to disturb

the

> > > villagers or harm them. The Sage went his way subsequently. The

> > > villagers re-assured from next day onwards went about their work

and

> > one

> > > villager noticed the snake lying quietly in a corner near a hut,

and

> > > threw a stone on it to provoke him wanting to know whether he was

> > alive

> > > or dead. But the snake just moved his body doing nothing. Taking

cue

> > the

> > > other villagers too threw stones at him, and the snake quietly

slid

> > > away. In coming days the same incident repeated and the snake

never

> > > retaliated but simply slid away in face of this torture from the

> > village

> > > residents since he had promised the Sage that he will harm no one.

> > > > One day the Sage returned to that village en route passing and

> > noticed

> > > the snake who was lying bruised, hurt and wounded, bleeding all

> over,

> > > and inquired about the sy of his state. The snake replied that he

> was

> > > following only his instructions and nothing else. Then the sage

felt

> > > remorse and advised him " In this world its good to be good, but

not

> so

> > > good that people take advantage of you. You must not bite, but

learn

> > to

> > > hiss when some body attacks you, so that he backs away out of

fear "

> > > >

> > > > best wishes,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> > ShankaraBharadwaj

> > > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Just a quick point. There is no question about the centrality

of

> > > Dharma, the righteous-moral order as you said, I said and as we

> > > exchanged on Rama-Ravana previously. However, when we talk of

> divinity

> > > there cannot be line between the moral and immoral. It is not that

> God

> > > does not say He is in the sinners - God does say so. For instance

> > Sruti

> > > vakya goes " vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo. .. agre

> > vadhaya

> > > dure vadhaya... " He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat

> those

> > > cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front

and

> > > from far.

> > > > >

> > > > > When the Iccha or divine will causes creation, there cannot be

> > sides

> > > like His and His opponents, for there is no one opposite to Him -

> all

> > > that is, He is what runs it with His own purpose that He alone

> > > understands - glimpses of which are seen by seers.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The question is not whether we should see divine in a person -

> the

> > > secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw

> lines

> > > between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the

> > phenomenal

> > > view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a

causal

> > > view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal

and

> > > insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called

universe

> > or

> > > creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the

> > > purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or

> > > unrighteous deed.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, as I already said the way to gain such a vision, to

> > evolve

> > > as a being, righteousness is primary prerequisite. It is to

> emphasize

> > > this that Pauranika literature stresses on righteous behavior, on

> > > differentiating good and bad, on being noble. But that is one

phase,

> > in

> > > the evolution. In the next, there is no such distinction.

> > > > >

> > > > > Shankar

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > > > > Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:46:16 PM

> > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in

> God

> > ?

> > > (Seperate Thread)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Gaurav ji,

> > > > > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh

> Upanishad.

> > > > > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

> > > > > You must re-read my mail please.

> > > > > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families

> > welfare

> > > .

> > > > > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his

family.

> > > > > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and

> > have

> > > made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of

> pleasure.

> > > > > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other

Karyakartas

> > > whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing

what

> > and

> > > why. I am only saying that " I cannot see God in him " .

> > > > > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad

> Gita

> > > Chapter 10

> > > > > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi

> and

> > > the radiant Sun among the luminaries.. . among the Vedas He is

> > > Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He

> is

> > > Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the

> > > mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is

Brihaspati,

> > > ...among the great Seers he is Bhrigu...... .among the words He is

> the

> > > sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya....

> > > .......among the celestial sages He is Narada...... .among the

> Siddhas

> > > He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows,

He

> is

> > > the Kamadehnu... ......... ..among serpents He is Vasuki, among

> Manes

> > He

> > > is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

> > > Death)...... ....

> > > > > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the

> > sinners

> > > (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord

> Krishna

> > > says that among the Daityas " I am the great devotee Prahlada " .

> > > > > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that

> > > " wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power "

is

> a

> > > misunderstood statement by you.

> > > > > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha.

> You

> > > have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly.

I

> > > mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper

> way

> > > of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

> > > > > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have

> already

> > > mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga,

> > Japa

> > > Yoga etc......

> > > > > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme

> state

> > > in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

> > > > > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as

> superior

> > > even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to

> > those

> > > who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna ,

> do

> > > you become a Yogi.

> > > > > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14, 15 and 17 and

> > > additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has

given

> > us

> > > the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya

Yoga.

> > > > > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the

> > other

> > > ways.

> > > > > best wishes,

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> " gaurav.ghosh "

> > > <gaurav.ghosh@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ||Jai Ramakrishna| |

> > > > > > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > > > > > Your question as in " God in Man, or Man in God? " reminds me

a

> > > sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the

> > > SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > > > > > " Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > > > > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah " ,

> > > > > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is

again

> > > near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again

everyone/everything

> is

> > > within him.

> > > > > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would

rather

> > > resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri

Krishna

> > > says that " Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider

that

> to

> > > be due to my divine power " [Yat yat bibhutimat satwam

> > shreemat-urjitameva

> > > ba, tat-tat-eva- avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam ].

> > > > > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must

> > have

> > > done something good in his life, but all his good works are

> nullified

> > > ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre

of

> > > boiling milk.

> > > > > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its

his

> > > situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My

> > grandfather

> > > used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to

feed

> > his

> > > 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!].

> > Similarly,

> > > stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

> > > thief's side--It is a compulsion.[ Mind you, I am not supporting

the

> > > thief].

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by

all--as

> > five

> > > fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > > > > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable

> > topic.

> > > For centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a

single

> > way,

> > > but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same

> > sea.

> > > Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not

> only

> > > meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the

> > compressed

> > > volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

> > > Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/ Rajyoga.

> > > > > > " Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting

his

> > > name " --Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry

> > subject--its

> > > all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so

difficult

> to

> > > practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

> > > Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > > > > > Thank you,

> > > > > > Gaurav.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> > > " bhaskar_jyotish " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as

people

> > say

> > > about

> > > > > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in

it

> > > cannot say

> > > > > > > that " I contain the space " . But the Space can say that I

> > contain

> > > the

> > > > > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite.

> > Those

> > > who

> > > > > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do

they

> > see

> > > God in

> > > > > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in

those

> > who

> > > eat

> > > > > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants,

in

> > > those who

> > > > > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men

> > closeted

> > > in rooms

> > > > > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for

money,

> in

> > > those who

> > > > > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like

the

> > > Clay pot.

> > > > > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is

> > > removed and

> > > > > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside.

The

> > clay

> > > pot

> > > > > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths

> of

> > > bodies )

> > > > > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got

> > nothing

> > > > > > > solitarily to do with " Enlightenment " or Moksha. If just

> mind

> > > was the

> > > > > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this

Group

> > and

> > > > > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved " Enlightenment "

?

> > Mind

> > > is just

> > > > > > > one of the " helpers " in this cause. Moksha is not a mental

> > state

> > > of

> > > > > > > mind. It is a " Real " state of mind and not " Percieved " .

> Moksha

> > > is not

> > > > > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see

> illusions

> > by

> > > > > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman

that

> > > because the

> > > > > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or

> > > acieved

> > > > > > > " Moksha " . Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of

the

> > > senses

> > > > > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us

> keep

> > > the

> > > > > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does

> not

> > > resonate

> > > > > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and

the

> > > others mind

> > > > > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind

stay

> > > happy with

> > > > > > > the knowledge that " just mind " has got everything to do

with

> > > Moksha and

> > > > > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know

> > this.

> > > Please

> > > > > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then

> yours,

> > > and may

> > > > > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive

and

> > > forget. I

> > > > > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that

> > Moksha

> > > can

> > > > > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of

any

> > > types). Too

> > > > > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got

nothing

> to

> > > do with

> > > > > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Bhaskar ji. My pleasure. Shankarbhaskar_jyotish <bhaskar_jyotish Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 12:41:22 AM Re: God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate

Thread)

 

 

 

Dear Bharadwaj ji,

 

I have nothing left to comment on your mail, as it is the absolute

truth. I can just surrender to your mail taking in each statement as

what it should be.

 

Our state of evolution has to be improved constantly is what I

understand and will strive towards the same, with association of good

people like yourself.

 

Love and regards,

 

Bhaskar.

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj

Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

>

> Absolutely my pleasure that you liked it. The very nature of these

topics is such, exchanges on them are so nice. I was actually drafting a

follow-up on the previous post, here it is -

>

> With respect to the different states of the example, we can map how

Dharma for an individual is determined. In all those levels, only the

first is completely Adharmic - all the other eight, are not totally

Adharma. Even the second is not condemned as Adharma, in acute

situations. How Dharma is determined, what kind of impression is left by

a a choice of action from these levels, is dependent on what stage of

evolution a person is and what is the circumstance of the action.

>

> For instance, if a person's stature is such that he usually

retaliates, a moment of non-retaliation will leave a good impression on

him. And anything lower than what his personality suggests, such as

unprovoked harming, will create a negative impression on him. For a more

evolved person, retaliating itself creates a negative impression. For a

more evolved person, even having illwill without harming can create a

negative impression. But as such, there is no Adharma in either of these

- thus, though universal, Dharma and Karma samskara that ensues from it

is yet contextual. The revenge taken by Pandavas did not put them in

hell, but it was sufficient only to take them to heaven for all their

righteousness - not to liberate them. On the other hand, a total

surrender done by Bhishma, no matter what side he fell in, gave him

liberation. It depends on how deep one is evolved to look into his

antahkarana and how many kosas have veiled his self. It depends on

> how much of a pasu he is and how much of a devata he is, that his

karma samskaras are, what the intellectual stature of the person is.

>

>

> Thus in the whole realm of possibilities, few are Adharma, the others

though not adharmic, leave different kinds of impressions on doers at

different levels of evolution. The same choice of action will leave

different impressions on doers at different stages. To understand the

nature of these impressions, to make pure consciousness (Ganga) flow

over them and cleanse them, in the conscient first (earth-consciousnes s)

and subconscient next (patala, where the ashes of previous lives are) is

what (karma) yoga is all about. It is when the avatarana of divine

consciousness is down to the subconscient, that the evolution is

complete. Until then man goes higher and keeps falling, goes in cycles.

(Ganga-avatarana of Ramayana is my favorite story as it is a beautiful

description of the descent of divine Truth consciousness over

earth-consciousness and the sub-conscious, thus divinizing the whole

being).

>

> Shankar

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> Monday, September 7, 2009 4:47:49 PM

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

(Seperate Thread)

>

>

>

> Dear Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

>

> What a beautiful mail. All Golden words . I made my wife read this,

> because we just discussing last night uptil 3.00am on karma and such

> topics since our son was keeping up late at night and we too were not

> getting sleep. In fact there is a family member with whom I was

bearing

> ill will due to his atrocities on us, and we were discussing about him

> too last night.

>

> At the moment I am on No.6 and hope to reach the other levels

gradually

> through constant introspection daily.

>

> But this does not mean that I cannot jump back to the previous

> categories on provocations with different people and in different

> situations.

>

> The Lifes whole struggle is to reach this No.9 level, mentioned in

your

> mail, and to keep that level maintained thought thereafter in all

> situations and with all.

>

> .....not having illwill would liberate us from the repeated emotions,

> and instead let us divert our thoughts to something positive that

> improve our lives....... ..

>

> The above was very true fact mentioned by you, which most of us have

to

> understand and live upto reach and maintain cautiously.

>

> I have really enjoyed my exchanges wth you, and learnt a great deal

for

> further improvement, and thank you profusely for the same.

>

> best wishes,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj

> Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > No not at all. In fact I am talking of the practical side, and not

the

> higher - there are people who

> >

> > 1. harm others to further their cause

> > 2. harm others for their necessities

> > 3. do not harm others even for their necessities

> > 4. retaliate highly when they are harmed

> > 5. retaliate occasionally when they are harmed

> > 6. do not retaliate, only prevent further harm but keep illwill

> > 7. do not retaliate, prevent further harm and do not keep illwill

> > 8. do not retaliate and ignore the previous harm

> > 9. do not retaliate and forgive the man who harmed them

> >

> > The first two are about people who harm others and do not need to be

> discussed. But one would actually move down these to 9, eventually.

> However there is a huge difference between not bearing illwill for a

man

> who harmed us and forgiving him. One does not need to have illwill,

> since we believe each one's karma takes its course we need not

> interfere. There we are basically leaving it to destiny to figure out

> what to do with the man, and we try to fix our life. On the other hand

> forgiving is quite different, where we take it on ourselves to condone

> the mistake - which means we are owning the negative effects of his

> actions and ready to bear its fruits - this is what godly men do. It

is

> not a human quality, it is a godly quality.

> >

> > What I was saying, is what is humanly practical and wise - because

not

> having illwill would liberate us from the repeated emotions, and

instead

> let us divert our thoughts to something positive that improve our

lives.

> >

> > Shankar

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > Monday, September 7, 2009 10:18:45 AM

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God ?

> (Seperate Thread)

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Shri Bharadwaj ji,

> >

> > //......... say is that regardless of the previous harm, such

illwill

> > and retaliation will only harm our prospects on karmic terms.

......//

> >

> > Thanks for the clarififcation. I should have known that You will not

> > talk of smaller octaves but of higher ones.

> >

> > I fully agree with you above.

> >

> > Am sorry for the trouble I have given to make you clarify.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> > ancient_indian_ astrology,

ShankaraBharadwaj

> > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,

> > >

> > > Just to clarify...

> > >

> > > There are two things here - one is following one's Dharma, being

> > Dharmic. What typically is advised in case of sadhakas is to do

> action,

> > but not reactions. One should do his Dharma, whether it involves

> > protecting oneself or one's family or nation. There is no question

> about

> > it. For one's own action, there is no doubt about Dharma as the

basis.

> > >

> > > The second thing is about the natural illwill that develops when

we

> > encounter someone who had previously harmed us. It is this context

> that

> > I am referring to. In this case, what elders say is that regardless

of

> > the previous harm, such illwill and retaliation will only harm our

> > prospects on karmic terms. This has nothing to do with trying to

> > understand the motives of people or being cautious with them.

> > >

> > > Shankar

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > > Sunday, September 6, 2009 12:51:08 AM

> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in God

?

> > (Seperate Thread)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

> > >

> > > //However, when we talk of divinity there cannot be line between

the

> > moral and immoral.//

> > >

> > > The Practicability of this suggestion living in this world

> > >

> > > In material Life, in grihasta ashram, and in this world we have to

> > draw a line for such matters figuratively. If I know a certain boy

is

> > immoral and he is my beautiful daughters friend, I will not act

"sama"

> > but will make efforts to see that my daughter does not meet this boy

> > more than necessary, and he is not allowed much access to

communicate

> > with her. By doing this I do not become less of "Divine" but am just

> > doing my duty, which tooo is a part of Divinity which we are

supposed

> to

> > follow.

> > >

> > > If one of my astrologer colleagues tells me that "I am sending one

> > client to you and since he is my relative I cannot charge him, but

you

> > should, and suggest him a Pooja worth Rs.25000- and pass me 20% as

my

> > share, and dont worry he can pay more than this he is a very rich

> man",

> > I will certainly draw a line between moral and immoral, and not

accede

> > to his request and demand, but refuse to do his biddings. This will

> not

> > make me less divine or reduce my divinity, rather increase it.

> > >

> > > The actual practicability of this is similiar to what a Sage

> suggested

> > to a snake - I am sure you have heard this story - Kaato mat, par

> > fufkaaro.

> > >

> > > For those who have not -

> > >

> > > There was once a village in which a poisinous snake lived and

> > villagers could not go about their duties comfortably out of fear of

> > this snake. Once a reputed Sage passed through thaty village, so the

> > Headman visited the Sage and narrated his predicament. The Sage

> assured

> > him, and next day went to the snake and told him, not to disturb the

> > villagers or harm them. The Sage went his way subsequently. The

> > villagers re-assured from next day onwards went about their work and

> one

> > villager noticed the snake lying quietly in a corner near a hut, and

> > threw a stone on it to provoke him wanting to know whether he was

> alive

> > or dead. But the snake just moved his body doing nothing. Taking cue

> the

> > other villagers too threw stones at him, and the snake quietly slid

> > away. In coming days the same incident repeated and the snake never

> > retaliated but simply slid away in face of this torture from the

> village

> > residents since he had promised the Sage that he will harm no one.

> > > One day the Sage returned to that village en route passing and

> noticed

> > the snake who was lying bruised, hurt and wounded, bleeding all

over,

> > and inquired about the sy of his state. The snake replied that he

was

> > following only his instructions and nothing else. Then the sage felt

> > remorse and advised him "In this world its good to be good, but not

so

> > good that people take advantage of you. You must not bite, but learn

> to

> > hiss when some body attacks you, so that he backs away out of fear"

> > >

> > > best wishes,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> ShankaraBharadwaj

> > Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Just a quick point. There is no question about the centrality of

> > Dharma, the righteous-moral order as you said, I said and as we

> > exchanged on Rama-Ravana previously. However, when we talk of

divinity

> > there cannot be line between the moral and immoral. It is not that

God

> > does not say He is in the sinners - God does say so. For instance

> Sruti

> > vakya goes "vancate pari vancate... svebhyo svapatibhyo. .. agre

> vadhaya

> > dure vadhaya..." He is the ruler of the cheats, those who cheat

those

> > cheats, those who live on dog-meat, the one who kills from front and

> > from far.

> > > >

> > > > When the Iccha or divine will causes creation, there cannot be

> sides

> > like His and His opponents, for there is no one opposite to Him -

all

> > that is, He is what runs it with His own purpose that He alone

> > understands - glimpses of which are seen by seers.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The question is not whether we should see divine in a person -

the

> > secret is that for someone who can see divine, he does not draw

lines

> > between the righteous and the immoral - because it is not the

> phenomenal

> > view that he looks things from. He looks at the world from a causal

> > view, in which all these apparently right and wrong are nominal and

> > insignificant parts of the grand scheme of sacrifice called universe

> or

> > creation. He sees the purpose served by each such instrument, the

> > purpose for which the instrument is employed for the righteous or

> > unrighteous deed.

> > > >

> > > > However, as I already said the way to gain such a vision, to

> evolve

> > as a being, righteousness is primary prerequisite. It is to

emphasize

> > this that Pauranika literature stresses on righteous behavior, on

> > differentiating good and bad, on being noble. But that is one phase,

> in

> > the evolution. In the next, there is no such distinction.

> > > >

> > > > Shankar

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > bhaskar_jyotish bhaskar_jyotish@ ...

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > > > Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:46:16 PM

> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: God in Man, or Man in

God

> ?

> > (Seperate Thread)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Gaurav ji,

> > > > Thank You for the participation and the shloka from teh

Upanishad.

> > > > Now Let me remove some misconceptions.

> > > > You must re-read my mail please.

> > > > I am not talking of one who sells his own blood for families

> welfare

> > .

> > > > I am not talking of one who sells his own kidney for his family.

> > > > I was talking about those who forcefully do this on others and

> have

> > made it as a profession or means of livelihood or source of

pleasure.

> > > > I am not even judging the rapist or any of the other Karyakartas

> > whom I have mentioned. For we are nobody to judge who is doing what

> and

> > why. I am only saying that "I cannot see God in him".

> > > > The speciality part what you mentioned comes in the Bhagavad

Gita

> > Chapter 10

> > > > Lord Krishna says that He is Vishnu among the 12 sons of Aditi

and

> > the radiant Sun among the luminaries.. . among the Vedas He is

> > Samaveda.... among the Gods He is Indra.....among the 11 Rudras He

is

> > Lord Siva.... among the 8 Vasus He is the God of Fire....among the

> > mountains He is Mount Meru.......Among the priests He is Brihaspati,

> > ...among the great Seers he is Bhrigu...... .among the words He is

the

> > sacred syllable OM.....among the immovable He is the Himalaya....

> > .......among the celestial sages He is Narada...... .among the

Siddhas

> > He is Kapil......among elephants He is the Airavata, among cows, He

is

> > the Kamadehnu... ......... ..among serpents He is Vasuki, among

Manes

> He

> > is Ayama(Head of the Pitris), among rulers He is Yama (God of

> > Death)...... ....

> > > > Nowhere is it mentioned that Krishna can be the Head of the

> sinners

> > (rapists or the murderers or the blood sellers ) In fact Lord

Krishna

> > says that among the Daityas "I am the great devotee Prahlada".

> > > > Therefore when you say that Lord Krishna has mentioned that

> > "wherever any speciality is found consider it as my Divine power" is

a

> > misunderstood statement by you.

> > > > I have never mentioned that Bhakti is the only way to Moksha.

You

> > have apparently hurried your reply without reading mines properly. I

> > mentioned " I know that Moksha can > come only with Bhakti, proper

way

> > of Living and Yoga (of any types). "

> > > > Please check what I have written in brackets above. I have

already

> > mentioned about Yoga which means RajYoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga,

> Japa

> > Yoga etc......

> > > > Lord Krishna has specified the best way to reach the supreme

state

> > in Chapter 6 Shloka 46 which translates as under -

> > > > The Yogi is superior to the ascetics ; he is regarded as

superior

> > even to those versed in sacred lore. The Yogi is also superior to

> those

> > who perform action with some interested motive. Therefore Arjuna ,

do

> > you become a Yogi.

> > > > In the same Chapter 6, in Shlokas 9,11,12,13,14, 15 and 17 and

> > additionally very important in Chapter 5, Shlokas 27-28 He has given

> us

> > the technical method of performing this Yoga- Pranayam -Kriya Yoga.

> > > > I agree that Bhakti Yoga is the easiest way to follow then the

> other

> > ways.

> > > > best wishes,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

"gaurav.ghosh"

> > <gaurav.ghosh@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > ||Jai Ramakrishna| |

> > > > > Dear Bhaskarji,

> > > > > Your question as in "God in Man, or Man in God?" reminds me a

> > sloka from Ishavasya Upanishad[or Isha Upanishad] describes the

> > SupremeAtman [i.e. Parabrahman] as :

> > > > > "Tatejati, tannaijati, taddurey, tadvantike

> > > > > Tadantarasya sarvasya, tadu sarvasyasya bahyatah",

> > > > > --He is movable, he is again immovable, he is far, he is again

> > near/closer, he is within everyone of us, again everyone/everything

is

> > within him.

> > > > > Regarding your question on God is in everyone, I would rather

> > resort to Shreemat Bhagavat Gita, in Bibhuti Yoga where Shri Krishna

> > says that "Whenever you find any speciality in anyone,consider that

to

> > be due to my divine power"[Yat yat bibhutimat satwam

> shreemat-urjitameva

> > ba, tat-tat-eva- avagaccha twam mama tejo-amsa-sambhavam ].

> > > > > For a rapist, not necessarily he is born as a rapist-he must

> have

> > done something good in his life, but all his good works are

nullified

> > ones he rapes someone--its like a drop of lime juice in one litre of

> > boiling milk.

> > > > > For others, like one selling kidneys or selling blood--its his

> > situations have tended him to do so.[An honest confession:My

> grandfather

> > used to sell his blood, when he was cheated in his business, to feed

> his

> > 7 sons & one daughter--he & his wife could remain unfed!!!].

> Similarly,

> > stealing is a wrong act, frm a victim's point of view, but from a

> > thief's side--It is a compulsion.[ Mind you, I am not supporting the

> > thief].

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course, your views not necessarily be supported by all--as

> five

> > fingers have 5 diff. shapes & each of them are necessary.

> > > > > Whether, Bhakti is the only way for Moksha...is a debatable

> topic.

> > For centuries, various authorities have tried to establish a single

> way,

> > but could never come to a solution, as all rivers lead to the same

> sea.

> > Shreemat Bhagavad Gita---an important text for all religions[not

only

> > meant for the followers of Sanatan Vedic Dharma]as it is the

> compressed

> > volume of Upanishads, records basically four ways of achieving

> > Moksha--Jnan, Bhakti, Karma & King of all Yogas--Dhyan/ Rajyoga.

> > > > > "Easiest in achieving God in Kaliyuga is Bhakti, reciting his

> > name"--Shri Ramakrishna used to say, as Jnana yoga is a dry

> subject--its

> > all about distinguishing, whilst we are selfish souls, so difficult

to

> > practise karmayoga[unless blessed by God himself] & Dhyan Yoga/Raj

> > Yoga---it is not easy in this material world.

> > > > > Thank you,

> > > > > Gaurav.

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,

> > "bhaskar_jyotish" bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > God in Man, or Man in God ? Nothing is within us, as people

> say

> > about

> > > > > > God. God is within and without both. A pot with space in it

> > cannot say

> > > > > > that "I contain the space". But the Space can say that I

> contain

> > the

> > > > > > Pot, since the space is infinite while the pit is finite.

> Those

> > who

> > > > > > argue that God is with everyone, then I ask them how do they

> see

> > God in

> > > > > > a rapist, in a Murderer, in those who sell kidneys, in those

> who

> > eat

> > > > > > small new born and dead children in foreign restaurants, in

> > those who

> > > > > > have unnatural sex with animals, in those who hold men

> closeted

> > in rooms

> > > > > > by force, and take out their blood daily to sell for money,

in

> > those who

> > > > > > kill innocent public by planting bombs. Man is just like the

> > Clay pot.

> > > > > > He cannot say that " There is God in me " until the pot is

> > removed and

> > > > > > the space inside the pot merges with the space outside. The

> clay

> > pot

> > > > > > here represent the sapta sharir or sapta kosha or 7sheaths

of

> > bodies )

> > > > > > with which a human soul in enveloped with. Mind has got

> nothing

> > > > > > solitarily to do with "Enlightenment" or Moksha. If just

mind

> > was the

> > > > > > criteria then we have many intelligent members in this Group

> and

> > > > > > millions in the world. Have they achieved "Enlightenment" ?

> Mind

> > is just

> > > > > > one of the "helpers" in this cause. Moksha is not a mental

> state

> > of

> > > > > > mind. It is a "Real" state of mind and not "Percieved".

Moksha

> > is not

> > > > > > for imaginary but for real. Mind can be made to see

illusions

> by

> > > > > > inducing drugs and what not in the body. Does not eman that

> > because the

> > > > > > mind saw certain visions the man has become enlightned or

> > acieved

> > > > > > "Moksha". Out of the 16 senses , the mind is just one of the

> > senses

> > > > > > helping for this cause as mentioned once again. So let us

keep

> > the

> > > > > > mind aside, never mind if our minds and minds of few does

not

> > resonate

> > > > > > together, if one feels that his mind is all knowing and the

> > others mind

> > > > > > is less knowing, what goes of our minds ? Let that mind stay

> > happy with

> > > > > > the knowledge that "just mind" has got everything to do with

> > Moksha and

> > > > > > the mind of others have not attained the wiseness to know

> this.

> > Please

> > > > > > nobody mind my mail, because my mind is different then

yours,

> > and may

> > > > > > not be well developed like your mind, so please forgive and

> > forget. I

> > > > > > dont care that my mind is less developed, coz I know that

> Moksha

> > can

> > > > > > come only with Bhakti, proper way of Living and Yoga (of any

> > types). Too

> > > > > > much intellignece of the mind, or too less, has got nothing

to

> > do with

> > > > > > Moksha is what my mind believes in. best wishes, Bhaskar.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinita ji,

 

Thank you. Yes, identifying one as part of surroundings is an essential

principle in evolution - especially in Karma yoga.

 

The primary question with Arjuna is that he came to the war - which by itself

shows he is not beyond desires. His actions were righteous, but nevertheless run

by his desires. Same with all Pandavas. There is nothing " wrong " in this, but

that begets swarga - not apavarga. Had Arjuna been disinterested in kingdom and

so on, he would be different. He was only disinterested in getting it for the

blood of relatives - so he is only worried about the cost at which he is getting

what he desired, but not about having desire itself. Sri Krishna asked him to

get over that sentimentality (though that is noble in one way). If he was

detached, he would not even land in a situation like that where he has to choose

between individual nobility/chivalry and righteous action. Sama-dristi is quite

an advanced thing, and the Pandavas do not go that far.

 

 

Yes, it is a challenge not to identify oneself with others or actions - because

unless one knows himself, it is these external impressions that apparently

constitute oneself!

 

Shankar

 

 

 

________________________________

shankar_mamta <shankar_mamta

 

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 10:26:46 AM

Re: God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate

Thread)

 

 

 

Dear Shankar ji,

 

i was also impressed by your distinction of righteous karma / karma

inspired by dharma as being most important part of our lives.

 

Many masters talk of the imprtance of the present moment...and the need

to respond in the moment with consciousness and responsibility.

 

Maybe there are stages of consciousness as we evolve. If we can evolve

to think we are part of everything around us, we will naturally care for

everything around us, isn't it? The moment we stop thinking of just i,

me, myself and think more about the " others " as part of us, the actions

that result would be dharmic (perhaps).

 

When Arjun hesitated to fight his kin, did he not see himself in the

others? But then he was reminded of his duty as a kshatriya... and told

to be detached.

 

The Mahabharata poses many controversial questions. Many of the

" dharmic " actions could spring from compassion, identification with the

other....... but probably the secret lies to respond in the moment in the

" best " manner possible to the " other " without identifying oneself with

the action...

 

To get outside one's comfort zone to act for the other is one

challenge... (isn't dharmic action often uncomfortable? )

 

Not to identify oneself with the the other and not to identify oneself

with the action is a bigger challenge...

 

isn't it?

 

Best regards,

 

vinita

[Guest guest]

Dear Gopi ji,The point here is that the Pandavas all went to Swarga, with whatever minor differences they have - and it is one of the many worlds. It is not the culmination, there are many worlds above that one would see before eventually getting liberated. Shankargopi_b927 <gopi_b927 Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 12:52:49 PM Re: God in Man, or Man in God ? (Seperate Thread)

 

 

Dear Bharadwaj ji,i am sorry2disagree that all pandavas are same.DHARMARAJA is diferent.He is the king of DHARMA.Hence he was the one and only among pandavas to get into swarga with the BODY it is said......Love and regards,gopi.