Siddha Pranali

[raga]

Originally posted by Shashi:

Somaone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but it is the energies that cannot existing outside Lord.

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

 

Who is the someone who is telling this?

 

You might want to study together with the someone the Caitanya Caritamrta, the fourth chapter of Adi-lila, verses 59-72, where it is beautifully explained how everything in the spiritual world, including the Vraja-gopis, are a manifestation of this original spiritual energy, mahabhava-svarupa Sri Radha Thakurani.

 

I'll post them here for your consideration.

[raga]

Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi-lila, 4.59-72:

<blockquote>

59.

 

rAdhikA hayena kRSNera praNaya-vikAra

svarUpa-zakti hlAdinI nAma yAGhAra

 

zrImatI RAdhikA is the transformation of KRSNa's love. She is His internal energy called hlAdinI.

 

60.

 

hlAdinI karAya kRSNe AnandAsvAdana

hlAdinIra dvArA kare bhaktera poSaNa

 

That hlAdinI energy gives KRSNa pleasure and nourishes His devotees.

 

61.

 

sac-cid-Ananda, pUrNa, kRSNera svarUpa

eka-i cic-chakti tAGra dhare tina rUpa

 

Lord KRSNa's body is eternal [sat], full of knowledge [cit] and full of bliss [Ananda]. His one spiritual energy manifests three forms.

 

62.

 

AnandAMze hlAdinI, sad-aMze sandhinI

cid-aMze samvit yAre jJAna kari mAni

 

HlAdinI is His aspect of bliss; sandhinI, of eternal existence; and samvit, of cognizance, which is also accepted as knowledge.

 

63.

 

hlAdinI sandhinI samvit

tvayy ekA sarva-saMsthitau

hlAda-tApa-karI mizrA

tvayi no guNa-varjite

 

O Lord, You are the support of everything. The three attributes hlAdinI, sandhinI and samvit exist in You as one spiritual energy. But the material modes, which cause happiness, misery and mixtures of the two, do not exist in You, for You have no material qualities.

 

64.

 

sandhinIra sAra aMza zuddha-sattva nAma

bhagavAnera sattA haya yAhAte vizrAma

 

The essential portion of the sandhinI potency is zuddha-sattva. Lord KRSNa?s existence rests upon it.

 

65.

 

mAtA, pitA, sthAna, gRha, zayyAsana Ara

e-saba kRSNera zuddha-sattvera vikAra

 

KRSNa's mother, father, abode, house, bedding, seats and so on are all transformations of zuddha-sattva.

 

66.

 

sattvaM vizuddhaM vasudeva-zabditaM

yad Iyate tatra pumAn apAvRtaH

sattve ca tasmin bhagavAn vAsudevo

hy adhokSajo me manasA vidhIyate

 

"The condition of pure goodness [zuddha-sattva], in which the Supreme Personality of Godhead is revealed without any covering, is called vasudeva. In that pure state the Supreme Godhead, who is beyond the material senses and who is known as VAsudeva, is perceived by my mind."

 

67.

 

kRSNe bhagavattA-jJAna saMvitera sAra

brahma-jJAnAdika saba tAra parivAra

 

The essence of the samvit potency is knowledge that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is Lord KRSNa. All other kinds of knowledge, such as the knowledge of Brahman, are its components.

 

68.

 

hlAdinIra sAra prema, prema-sAra bhAva

bhAvera parama-kASThA, nAma??mahA-bhAva

 

The essence of the hlAdinI potency is love of God, the essence of love of God is emotion [bhAva], and the ultimate development of emotion is mahAbhAva.

 

69.

 

mahAbhAva-svarUpA zrI-rAdhA-ThAkurANI

sarva-guNa-khani kRSNa-kAntA-ziromaNi

 

zrI RAdhA ThAkurANI is the embodiment of mahAbhAva. She is the repository of all good qualities and the crest jewel among all the lovely consorts of Lord KRSNa.

 

70.

 

tayor apy ubhayor madhye

rAdhikA sarvathAdhikA

mahAbhAva-svarUpeyaM

guNair ativarIyasI

 

"Of these two gopIs [RAdhArANI and CandrAvalI], zrImatI RAdhArANI is superior in all respects. She is the embodiment of mahAbhAva, and She surpasses all in good qualities."

 

71.

 

kRSNa-prema-bhAvita yAGra cittendriya-kAya

kRSNa-nija-zakti rAdhA krIDAra sahAya

 

Her mind, senses and body are steeped in love for KRSNa. She is KRSNa's own energy, and She helps Him in His pastimes.

 

72.

 

Ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhAvitAbhis

tAbhir ya eva nija-rUpatayA kalAbhiH

goloka eva nivasaty akhilAtma-bhUto

govindam Adi-puruSaM tam ahaM bhajAmi

 

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with RAdhA, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency [hlAdinI]. Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa."

</blockquote>

 

[For the record, the translations above are extracted from the Caitanya Caritamrta edition of Swami AC Bhaktivedanta, and any additions in the translation are his, not mine.]

 

 

In the 64th verse above, it was declared how the existence of Sri Krishna Himself rests on His energy.

 

Essentially everything around Him, including His personal paraphernalia, consists of His energy. Have you ever read a description of Sri Krishna alone, without His paraphernalia (flute, ornaments, clothes etc.) floating in nothingness? This would be Sri Krishna without His energies. Actually it would only be "Krishna", because "Sri" denotes the feminine aspect present in Him, His energy.

 

Even it would not be "Krishna", because "Krishna" denotes the "All-attractive", and since there would be no "All" and consequently no-one to be attracted to Him, it would perhaps only be "AUM".

 

Anyway, even if He would be in such a state, you could not recognize it, because recognition of Him is of the nature of samvit-shakti.

 

zakti-zaktimator abhedaH -- the shakti and the shaktiman are not separate.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Originally posted by Shashi:

Somaone is telling me that Lord cannot exist outside the energies, but it is the energies that cannot exist outside the Lord.

Jagatji this is VERY WRONG.

I DID NOT SAY THIS

YOU ARE SAYING ME WRONGLY!!!

I was said that the LOrd CAN existing OUTSIDE the energies but you are saying I am telling that He cannot. If you are looking at my primal posting you will see you have quote me wrong.

You must fix up.It is being the missrepresenting. Fix up please, I begging you.

[Jagat]

OK, Shashi, but I am still not sure where I went wrong.

 

You were responding to this comment:

Originally posted by Jagat:

Krishna does not exist without his energies.

You said:

Someone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but it is the energies that cannot existing outside Lord.

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

I assumed you were speaking to me when you said, "someone." So naturally I thought you were paraphrasing me, but evidently you were not. Why you quoted me if I am not the someone you were talking about is the first point of confusion.

 

Secondly, in English syntax when you use the word "but", that means you are going to say something that contradicts what went before. Thus when you say: "Someone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but it is the energies that cannot existing outside Lord." The two parts of the sentence are fundamentally in agreement and the word "but" causes confusion.

 

If I say, "I am a man, but I am male," this makes no sense.

 

When you say, "Someone tells me God can exist outside the energies, but it is the energies that cannot exist independently of God." The "but" tells me that you are going to contradict the previous statement, but the two halves of the sentence are in essential harmony. If your intention was to say, "God exists independently of his energies, but his energies cannot exist independently of him," then the "but" is engaged in its proper function.

 

I assure you that I am quite familiar with this statement in the Gita, which is intended for the conditioned soul, who is unaware of his dependent condition. The individual soul is entirely dependent on God and surely God has no need of the individual soul. Is this your understanding?

 

My answer is "yes, but." Please read my earlier post, where I was primarily concerned with Radha, the original shakti, and her relationship with Krishna. But Krishna is not only existing in relation to Radha, but in relation to all his energies. Hegel had a nice expression, that history is "the world spirit coming to consciousness of itself." Though this may not be exactly what the Upanishadic thinkers had in mind, it can be adapted for our purpose.

 

Through creation, God Himself is moving eternally to better self-being, better self-understanding, and better self-enjoyment. He can only do so through the exercise of his energies and in relation to them. He thus NEEDS his energies.

 

Of course, we need Him more than He needs us. Nevertheless, when the jiva turns to God, the Lord is grateful and responds in a direct and personal fashion. Otherwise, what is the need of God entering the world as Supersoul or in his avatars?

 

Otherwise, what is the meaning of statements like "ahaM bhakta-parAdhIno" etc.? Or that he is controlled by his devotees like a husband is controlled by his faithful and loving wife? Or when Krishna says to the gopis that he is unable to repay his debt to them?

 

Unless we accept the idea of divine need, divine reciprocation becomes entirely arbitrary and meaningless.

 

Naturally, since each jiva is infinitesimal, God's need for each jiva is also infinitesimal, when viewed from His absolute position. However, God divides himself infinitely to reciprocate absolutely with each infinitesimal soul. Externally there may be a hierarchy of love, but for each individual there is only an all-encompassing absolute relation with the Absolute.

 

God is the soul of the soul, aNor aNiyAn as well as mahato mahIyAn.

 

So to summarize, my dear Shashi, I invoke the achintya-bhedabheda tattva: God in his divine, impersonal aspect is atmarama. However, in his personal aspect he is hungry for the love of his devotees. His hunger is the purpose and meaning of creation.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagat

[Jagat]

Dear Prabhus,

 

I do not wish to discourage those who want to participate in these discussions, yet are handicapped by a lack of mastery in English expression. It is unfortunate that we are limited by our language--I have a certain degree of knowledge of English, but do not speak Chinese or 99% of the world's other languages.

 

I feel somewhat guilty that I could not properly understand you if you chose to write me in your mother tongue (unless it is French, Hindi, Bengali or Sanskrit).

 

Nevertheless, the essence of wisdom is self-knowledge. If you do not have a mastery of English, then at least be self aware: you may not be properly communicating your own ideas. Be understanding of those who misunderstand you: it might be your own fault.

 

In fact, if I may be so bold as to say the same of some others. There are many native English speakers who write hurried posts without taking care to edit what they have written, without making clear paragraph breaks or using other editorial aids like bold and italics, quotes, etc., to facilitate reading their message.

 

I sometimes get the feeling that certain individuals express their ideas poorly and then get angry when others do not understand them and disagree. If you want to convince others on these forums, then besides learning Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, learn English, master rhetoric, and take care to make sure your visual presentation is tidy and easy to read.

 

Alam ativistareNa.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-04-2002).]

[raga]

I think many of us may not be aware of certain basic HTML tags used in refining the text. I'll contribute my few pennies.

 

<b> makes it bold </b> makes the bold stop.

 

<i> makes it italic </i> makes the italic stop.

 

<u> <u>makes it underlined</u> </u> makes the underlined stop.

 

 

<blockquote><blockquote> makes an indent begin.</blockquote></blockquote> makes an indent end.

 

<hr> makes a line to divide something.

<hr>

Then there are also tags which are used only on this bulletin board.

 

makes a quotation end.

 

The button ENTER or RETURN when clicked twice makes a new paragraph.

 

Please help fellow people understand you better. Learn these simple things.

[raga]

<center><font face="Georgia, Book Antiqua" color=brown size=4>Of course there are a number of</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" color=blue size=4> other tweaks <u>that </u>can be used</font>

<font face="Georgia, Book Antiqua" color=grey size=4> to make the text more clear </font><font face="Verdana, Arial" color=violet size=5>

but I suggest</font><font face="Trebuchet MS" color=orange size=3>

it will be sufficient </font>

<u><font face="Book Antiqua, Georgia" color=blue size=4>to use the basic tags given </u>above</font>

except

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman" color=#623425 size=4>when things really</font>

<font face="Verdana" color=red size=6> get out of hands.

 

</font>

 

It tends to happen. Have you <u>noticed?</u>

 

See HERE for a sample.

</center>

 

<font color=#ffffff>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Ram,

 

If you feel my standards of authority are acceptable, perhaps we may start a new thread to facilitate a clear discussion. Otherwise it may become bogged down by so many other contributions on other subject matters.

 

I'd say really if you want to have a discussion which extensively discusses the concept of niyama in the realm of Gaudiya-sadhana, I suggest you take the topic to "Philosophical and Theological Discussions" of Raganuga Discussions.

 

http://raganuga.org/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=1

Raga, if you agree with my conditions, we could discuss. I am also ready to start a new topic if that will make it clear. But what is the need to go to another forum ?

[Guest guest]

Jagat,nice work.

Raga,your Caitanya Caritamrta verses get to the heart of MY POINT.

There is a tendency to mix up creation siddhanta,with rasa siddhanta.

They are two completely different things.

First,I am sometimes opposed to the word "expansion",when refering to Radha in relation to Krsna,It's just a problem with semantics.

For example,People usually identify the expansions of Krsna,like Baladeva,or Ramachandra,or even Krsna in Dwarka lila,as being "LESS THEN" Krsna,because those expansions are exhibiting less qualities of perfection then Krsna.

Radha,on the other hand,is of a different type,she is not exhibiting less qualities,just different types.

That is one objection,people tend to confuse the "less then" expansions,with Radha,due to semantics and a lack of knowledge.

Also the mixing of creation siddhanta, can cause a misunderstanding when mixed with rasa siddhanta.

For example,the person who wrote that everything is expanding from Krsna,and was I saying that Krsna and Radha are coming from Brahman or something like that.

This is mixing siddhanta.

This is very tricky,but stick with me.

Krsna,is the cowherd boy,and lord of Dwarka,the Supreme male manifestation of Godhead.

When we use the term "Krsna",when refering to creation siddhanta,it is only a reference that neophytes can relate to.

For instance,Krsna has a Male form,arms,legs,eyes,hair etc,He lives in a town,with houses,cows,trees,flowers,fruits,vegetables,

etc.These are said to be eternal.

But there is a misunderstanding of this,by some. In order for trees,chairs,houses,fruits,flowers,arms,legs hair,clothes etc.,to exist,they had to have been designed,at some point.

Otherwise they could not exist.

The design of the paraphenalia,and forms of The residents of the spiritual realm,are by nature in necessity of a designer.

This is common sense.

Because we are told,that these things are existing eternally,this does not mean,that at some point they were not unmanifest.

They had to be designed,you cannot have a tree,or flower,or body,without a design,to have them manifest, for our use.

Krsna's body of two arms and legs,is the same. So why are we told that these things exist eternally,with no beginning.

That is for neophytes,they do not need the intricacies of creation explained in detail.

In fact,God has no beginning,yet at a point in time, Gods will became manifest,and then the spiritual paraphanalia was designed by God,and the spiritual Lokas became manifest.

This is truth,"Krsna" denotes the Supreme male personality of Godhead."Radha" is the Supreme female form of Godhead.

As the verse you gave from the C.C.,states,Krsnas one spiritual energy ,manifests in three ways.

God is Male and Female,at the same time,God created the concept of Male and Female.

This is the reality,Male and Female forms are not independent by themselves,and Gods consciousness is not limited by them.

They are the vehicles of Gods enjoyment.

This is something that is logical,and obvious,yet yoga-maya,blinds the neophyte sometimes to this truth,because they are not in need of this knowledge,for them simply believing that Krsnas bodily form, has existed forever,with no beginning is sufficient.

The truth is hidden in sastra and is revealed by the desire of God.

For example,Visnu,lies on the ocean of eternity,from his navel,a lotus grows,and Brahma,engages in austere meditation for a long time,in order to attain the power of creation.

Literal understanding is enough for the neophyte.

For the advanced devotee,a different story emerges.

Visnu,the Lord of everywhere,lies on the bed of eternity,and infinity.

At a point in time his will,and intelligence(Brahma) grow from his self(body),his intellect,and intelligence(Brahma) undergo austere meditation,from this greatest of Yagnas,Creation is begun,and then the spiritual and material worlds become manifest,From his one Spiritual energy,which takes on various manifestations.

It's not that "Krsna" is the source,even though we are told that,it is only for convienence.

"Krsna",is the Personality of the Complete male Godhead.

Radha is the Complete Female Personality,and also the pleasure potency.

Words can be confusing ,but that is on purpose ,for the sake of neophytes.

"Krsna",enjoys through his pleasure potency,this is a way to describe the reality, of Radha, as the form and Personality that Godhead finds the greatest satisfaction and pleasure.

When creation and maintaining siddhanta, is mixed with rasa siddhanta,in sastra,that is for the benefit of neophytes.

Another deeper realization is implied,and revealed by the desire of Godhead.

 

 

 

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, if you agree with my conditions, we could discuss. I am also ready to start a new topic if that will make it clear. But what is the need to go to another forum ?

I just feel there is more potential at Raganuga Discussions for a conducive scriptural discussion. People are used to citing proper evidence for their views.

 

But at least a new thread here.

[raga]

Shiva: Literal understanding is enough for the neophyte.

For the advanced devotee,a different story emerges.

Shiva, I can't resist from asking -- all these revolutionary, new views are very exciting -- did you realize them all yourself, or did you learn them from anyone?

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

I just feel there is more potential at Raganuga Discussions for a conducive scriptural discussion. People are used to citing proper evidence for their views.

 

But at least a new thread here.

OK. Niyamas of bhakti yoga.

 

 

[Guest guest]

What is the difference.

Everything,is viewed by the devotee,who is aware of reality,as Guru.

Guru,is God.

God is everywhere,and can reveal everything ,anywhere,at any time,at all times,or not at all.

Everything ,is seen,as the will of God,by the advanced devotee.

With this vision,undeterred by the distraction of seeing things going on independently,you are then capable of being the recipient, of conscious awareness, of the presence and mind of God.

This can not be achieved by our own ability,God can reveal knowledge,directly to you,first you have to be free from the influence of the illusory energy.

The illusory energy,is fooling us into thinking that God is not in control,of everything,and everyone,every sound,thought,and motion.

When you can see the controlling aspect ,in concert with the controlled result,then you are ready.

This is not recommended for neophytes,it is to confusing.

But if you are destined for that,then you will experience God,in everything you see,or hear.

It is not our ability,it is given to you.

[raga]

Originally posted by shiva:

What is the difference.

Everything,is viewed by the devotee,who is aware of reality,as Guru.

Guru,is God.

God is everywhere,and can reveal everything ,anywhere,at any time,at all times,or not at all.

Everything ,is seen,as the will of God,by the advanced devotee.

With this vision,undeterred by the distraction of seeing things going on independently,you are then capable of being the recipient, of conscious awareness, of the presence and mind of God.

This can not be achieved by our own ability,God can reveal knowledge,directly to you,first you have to be free from the influence of the illusory energy.

The illusory energy,is fooling us into thinking that God is not in control,of everything,and everyone,every sound,thought,and motion.

When you can see the controlling aspect ,in concert with the controlled result,then you are ready.

This is not recommended for neophytes,it is to confusing.

But if you are destined for that,then you will experience God,in everything you see,or hear.

It is not our ability,it is given to you.

Are you a prophet?

 

[sha]

Originally posted by shiva:

<big><font color="red">

What is the difference.

Everything,is viewed by the devotee,who is aware of reality,as Guru.

Guru,is God.

God is everywhere,and can reveal everything ,anywhere,at any time,at all times,or not at all.

Everything ,is seen,as the will of God,by the advanced devotee.

With this vision,undeterred by the distraction of seeing things going on independently,you are then capable of being the recipient, of conscious awareness, of the presence and mind of God.

This can not be achieved by our own ability,God can reveal knowledge,directly to you,first you have to be free from the influence of the illusory energy.

The illusory energy,is fooling us into thinking that God is not in control,of everything,and everyone,every sound,thought,and motion.

When you can see the controlling aspect ,in concert with the controlled result,then you are ready.

This is not recommended for neophytes,it is too confusing.

But if you are destined for that,then you will experience God,in everything you see,or hear.

It is not our ability,it is given to you.

</big></font>

 

<center>

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by sha (edited 05-04-2002).]

[Jagat]

After,deeply contemplating,your above,message.

I suggest,Shiva,that you,place

spaces after,your commas.

Youmaywant,tothink,about

using,less of them. Too. Maybe.

If you like,As youwish.

[Guest guest]

A Prophet?

Isn't that one who prophecizes?

That is not my ability.

Well,maybe a little,I know all our futures.

Just not the immediate details.

We will all become recipients of the fruits of the labor,of the devotional tree,that is Srimati Radharani.

This is prophecy,isn't it?

For now,if you are in the mood of Saranagati,then you will be successfull.

That is Prophetic to.

If you limit yourself to the level of understanding, that you are on,by egotistical

motives,you will slow down your advancement to a higher one.

This is why Saranagati,is important,by ourselves,we are inexperienced,the nature of the learning experience, is one of being able to accept guidance.

This is true in any field of endeavor.

Be it,Astrophysics to Zoology.

If we see ourselves as the master of truth,then there will be the inclination to be adverse to expanding our conception, and realization.

 

[raga]

From Merriam Webster (emphasis mine):

 

<blockquote>

Main Entry: proph·et

Pronunciation: 'prä-f&t

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Old French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN

12th century

 

1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament

2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet

3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR

4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group

5 Christian Science a : a spiritual seer b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth

</blockquote>

[raga]

In other words, Shiva, do you have a direct connection, or are you learning from a guru? That's what I was aiming at.

 

And don't say "so what".

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

OK, Shashi, but I am still not sure where I went wrong.

 

You are going wrong like this:- -

I am originally saying (posted 05-03-2002 08:19 PM)

Somaone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies

 

but you are quoting me like this

(posted 05-04-2002 07:40 AM )

originally posted by Shashi: Somaone is telling me that Lord cannot exist outside the energies Lord.

 

This is being obvious the wrong.

Please be fixing it up.

You are the quoting me BUT you are not quoting me, see?

 

 

[jijaji]

I would like to know as well Shiva.?

Who is your Guru?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 05-04-2002).]

[Jagat]

So Shashi, tell me, who was this someone? If it was I, then you were originally misquoting me. As such, I corrected you.

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

....in English syntax when you use the word "but", that means you are going to say something that contradicts what went before. Thus when you say: "Someone is telling me that Lord is can be existing outside the energies but it is the energies that cannot existing outside Lord." The two parts of the sentence are fundamentally in agreement and the word "but" causes confusion.

 

You are appearing to be one very confused up fellow. Using your dessertation when the Lord is saying,

"All things are in Me BUT I am not in all things" he is being using BUt incorreectly?

When somaone is saying "It never rains BUT pours" they are being using the BUT wrongly? If it is pouring with the rain it must be raining isnt it? Still one can be saying that with the BUT because in that sense one is making the contrasting utterance.

This is because the validly using of BUT is being many and varied as is being shown when you can be looking up the dictionary and how complexity is the using of this word. Ther being nothing wrong with my using BUT in my sentence so you must be fixing up your wrong quoatation of me!!!!

Otherwise I must be alerting JN Dasjji.

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

So Shashi, tell me, who was this someone? If it was I, then you were originally misquoting me. As such, I corrected you.

Prabhuji when I am saying that "someone is telling me" it is like when the people are saying "something" is telling them or it is like the saying "it seems to me". I cannot feeling that someTHING is telling me BUT I am am preferring that as more like the someONE. Are you understaning me?

It is like "mujhko laghta hai ki".

Mujhko lagta hai ki there is being a simple misunderstaning here on account of your very poor grasp of the styles of my speaking the english. PAMHO.

 

 

[raga]

Originally posted by Shashi:

You are appearing to be one very confused up fellow. Using your dessertation when the Lord is saying,

"All things are in Me BUT I am not in all things" he is being using BUt incorreectly?

When somaone is saying "It never rains BUT pours" they are being using the BUT wrongly? If it is pouring with the rain it must be raining isnt it? Still one can be saying that with the BUT because in that sense one is making the contrasting utterance.

This is because the validly using of BUT is being many and varied as is being shown when you can be looking up the dictionary and how complexity is the using of this word. Ther being nothing wrong with my using BUT in my sentence so you must be fixing up your wrong quoatation of me!!!!

Otherwise I must be alerting JN Dasjji.

Shashi, if you don't know how to spell English properly, I suggest you don't start debating on proper English grammar with one who is a native English speaker.

 

The original sentence where the word "BUT" appeared was rather confusing, since it had at least eight major mistakes in grammar and one spelling mistake on top of it.

 

So you should not be upset if your posting was not properly understood. I suggest that instead of trying to prove how you were right with the sentence with eight plus mistakes, you try to focus on the actual discussion at hand.

 

To keep things together, I suggest we try our best to stick to common standards of expression.

 

If I quote you and say "This person is telling like this and that", and then it turns out after two and half pages of debate that this "this person" was actually my inner sound of wisdom and not you, it is very difficult to get a comprehensible discussion together.

 

Would you have something to contribute in regards to the actual topic under examination? Everyone, please see the top left corner of your screen in case you can't figure it out by reading the last three pages or so.

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-04-2002).]