This is a point I can agree with. It is true that our
actions are very important, and that what you don't do
is as important as what you do. However, action is
meaningless without clarity. For you see, without
that clarity it is difficult for your actions to have
meaning, and even more difficult for the some of your
actions to have meaning.
If you want a to build a canoe out of a log, it is the
clarity of what the finished product should be that is
important. For you can chop off wood all you want,
without the clarity of the finished product all you
will end up with is a pile of wood chips. So it is
with our actions and sacrifice. Knowledge may be but
1% of what pleases god but without it how can the
other 99% be achieved?
You bring this up yourself with giving money as
sacrifice. You point out that giving to the wrong
cause pleases no one. You see, it is clarity that
will help you figure out what is the correct and
--- prakki surya <dattapr2000@...
> To please the Lord you have to surrender your words
> by singing about Him, the mind in His devotion and
> the intelligence in His discussions. However these
> three constitute only 1% of the total sacrifice and
> this is called as theoretical sacrifice. The
> sacrifice of your work and fruit of work constitutes
> 99% of sacrifice, which is called as practical
> sacrifice. The practical sacrifice should be done to
> the most deserving Lord in human form if recognised
> properly. The reason is that all this wealth belongs
> to the Lord only since He is the creator of the
> entire universe. All this wealth is His immovable
> property and all the living beings are His movable
> property. You are a part and parcel of His movable
> property. You are supposed to take any amount from
> His infinite wealth for your basic needs, the
> boundary of which cannot be infinite.
> The rich man who has no boundaries in his ambition
> to take the wealth of the Lord in unlimited
> quantities must realise that his effort is useless
> and waste. The reason is that one has to leave all
> the excess of wealth here only and his family
> members will not share his sin. They never provoked
> him to earn infinitely for their sake. Therefore he
> is the only responsible person for all the sins. He
> should retain the required wealth for all the needs
> only (Yavanartha UdapaneGita). If he analyses the
> family bonds, they are proved as unreal dramatic
> bonds. Therefore a rich man should donate the excess
> of wealth to the Lord in human form for His mission.
> If the human incarnation is not recognised, the
> second address of Lord is a real devotee. The Lord
> dwells in the hearts of a real devotee. But people
> are donating to temples seeing the statues without
> analysing the background management. If the manager
> is neither the human incarnation nor a real devotee,
> the sacrifice of your
> money is a waste.
> The sacrifice of money applies even to the
> ordinary human beings. No doubt these people are
> earning the money for their basic needs only. Some
> earn a little more to utilise for the unforeseen
> problems in the future. Storing the wealth for such
> purpose is also justified. Such storing is not
> wrong. Some people earn just up to the mark. Some
> people earn even below the mark. All these people
> need not do any sacrifice of their money to the
> Lord, because the very basic point is that the Lord
> neither needs your money nor your work for His
> mission. Just His will is sufficient to carry on His
> mission (Name Karmaphale SpruhaGita). But all these
> ordinary human beings also are wasting some money in
> the name of entertainments. All the entertainments
> will end only in loss and misery. Therefore you are
> wasting, your time, energy and money in the
> entertainments, which are ending in loss only.
> For example if you see a picture, you have lost
> the time and money and at the end you experience the
> loss of the energy also as weakness. Similarly
> reading the novels and doing unnecessary gossips.
> Either you utilise your time, energy and money for
> basic needs or store it for future needs. Instead of
> wasting for the entertainments, which end in loss
> (Duhkha Yonaya EvateGita), you convert this wastage
> into divine wealth for getting the grace of Lord
> which protects you here as well as there. This is a
> beneficial programme for you only and not for the
> At the lotus feet of Shri Datta Swami
> Benjamin Buehne <benbuehne@...> wrote:
> Prakki Surya,
> I understand what you are saying. However, the world
> does not move to the beat of just 1 drum. What might
> be right for you, may not be right for some. Jesus,
> Siddhartha, Krishna, and most every other religious
> figured speaked of purity. Clarity of mind, not
> sacrificing the divine for the earthly, and love.
> Relationships with the divine are personal.
> As far as I understand, you are of the belief that
> there is but 1 way to achieve this end and that is
> through Yoga. However many people have found the
> results different ways. Should we stifle these other
> practices that have done so much good because they
> were not mentioned by name? There are many ways to
> become more in touch with the divine, and Yoga is
> of them. Some are better at 1 than another... and so
> if they can have this connection using a particular
> method it is still good, for it is the connection
> is good rather than any 1 practice.
> There are many ways to achieve the same end... they
> can all be lumped into the same group... meditation
> practices, which Yoga is a part of. Just because you
> have been taught that Yoga is the only way, or you
> hadn't had success using other methods, does not
> it true. The truth is the truth... even if the truth
> is not known by anyone on earth.
> A story to demonstraight...
> One day a boat sank. All new how to swim but one
> unlearned man. As he struggled he found himself able
> to stay afloat but the method was unconventional. He
> would simply lay there and take deep breaths, barely
> keeping his mouth above the surface of the water.
> The others around chided him. "That is not how it is
> done. Look at me, I can teach you." He knew his way
> worked so he continued to do it even though the
> around were looking down their noses, as they had
> their entire heads above water.
> However, as time passed, all the others got tired.
> The man who simply floated stated... "look here I
> teach you" But no one would learn from pride.
> After a while they were picked up by a boat and the
> man was made fun of. The others thought he was
> foolish for not being able to learn to swim and made
> fun of how he looked in the water. Hearing this he
> addressed them "Look at you huffing and puffing.
> I stand refreshed. Who now looks foolish? Ridicule
> me if you wish, but I stand here able to help row
> boat, as much alive as all of you."
> Basicly there is more than 1 way to achieve the same
> end. Both styles had their advantages. Those
> swimming could see for help, and those who floated
> could conserve their energy. Both allowed them to
> drown. But you see, floating worked for him. In
> addition, if he was taught how it always was taught
> they would have struggled rowing the boat ashore.
> Change isn't always bad. It was that the man was
> to stay above the water that was important, not the
> way he was able to stay above the water.
> For such reasons, I will respectfully disagree,
> Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out
> the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around