Author Topic: True Knowledge Cannot be Replaced by False Knowledge  (Read 2631 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
True Knowledge Cannot be Replaced by False Knowledge
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:51:16 AM »
 True Knowledge Cannot be Replaced by False Knowledge
O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

 The infinite power of attraction of My knowledge is the truth in it and not My efficiency in the presentation. One type of false knowledge may be replaced by another type of false knowledge. But, the true knowledge can never be replaced by any type of false knowledge. That is the infinite power of the truth. The first adjective for knowledge is truth as said by the Veda (Satyam, Jnanam). A rope may be seen as snake for sometime and may be seen as a stick after sometime. Both snake and stick are false. Therefore, the snake may be replaced by stick or vice-versa. But once the rope is seen, it will never appear as stick or snake since truth can never be replaced by false.

Today, the spiritual field is fully occupied by concepts of false knowledge. The false knowledge is maintained by the preachers so that the disciples can be exploited forever, who will be in their grip throughout their life time. Once the true knowledge is opened, the disciples are in better state than the preachers. Hence, the preacher never likes the exposure of true knowledge. In fact, after a long time, the preacher also is not aware of the true knowledge. Even if the preacher knows the true knowledge due to the contact with a Satguru (true preacher), the preacher resists the true knowledge because of his constant immersion in the convenient false knowledge.

Let Me explain all this concept with the help of an example to show how the misinterpretation rules over the right interpretation. Today, people talk about their worship of Shri Chakra. The mention of this word raises the dignity and status in spiritual field. This word brings lot of respect from the public. The reason is that the present time favours only the misinterpretation and false knowledge of this concept. The actual meaning of Shri Chakra Upasaka makes other feel that he is a devotee of very high level. The actual meaning not caught by anyone is that, this word means a strong devotee to money! The word ‘Shri’ means money and wealth. The word ‘Chakra’ means the constant circular attraction in which one is trapped like a person unable to come out after being caught in the whirlpool of a river. Money is the root of all the worldly bonds. If the bond with money can be cut, all the worldly bonds spontaneously break. Salvation means the liberation from all the worldly bonds. By such salvation only, one can approach God. A bonded person cannot move and approach anybody. Since money is root bond, the liberation from the attraction of money is the liberation of all the worldly bonds. After such liberation only, one can approach God. It is the top most bond. The first five Chakras represent the five elements the constituent materials of the creation. Attraction is the process of mind representing the Sixth ‘Ajna Chakra’ and the four functional faculties (mind, intelligence, ego and memory) at this level are called as the four internal instruments (Anthahkaranams). The five elements and the four Antahkaranams constitute the main hurdles (Nava Avaranams) of the Shri Chakra. Above these six Chakras stands the ‘Sahasraara’ meaning infinite number of apartments represented by petals of the lotus flower. Thus, Shri Chakra is Sahasraara. This is the root illusion (Mula Maya). These apartments indicate various aspects of this world. This means that money is the root illusion related to by supporting any worldly aspect. Here, the word thousand means many. Hence, if you are able to detach yourself from money, you have crossed all the hurdles standing in the way to reach God. Therefore, the Veda says that by the sacrifice of money alone one can reach God (Dhanena Tyagenaikena).

Therefore, the actual subject is to cut the bonds with all the worldly attractions, which is completed by the final process of cutting your bond with money. Since money is the final, the only examination left over is money. Therefore, the Veda used the word ‘only’ (Ekena). When you passed all the lower examinations and only one final test is remained, you will be using the word ‘only’. The word ‘only one’ is used to mean the final level. To explain this concept more clearly, these worldly bonds are compared to wheels or whirlpools. These wheels stand as a simile to help better understanding of the truth. In course of time, due to encouragement of exploiting preachers, the simile is modified to metaphor in which the confusion is very convenient. In simile, we say that Rama is a king, who is heroic like a lion. This is the state of simile used in the beginning. In metaphor this statement is compressed and modified as ‘Rama is the lion’. After sometime, the word Rama is left over as the name of lion only and the human being disappeared. Now, the word Rama does not bring any human being to your mind since it brings only a lion from the forest. The exploiting preacher says that Rama is his close friend. You understand that the preacher is a good friend of a lion. Now, you will ask him the way to make friendship with a lion. The preacher prolongs the duration of training to achieve this result to your whole lifetime and collects fees throughout your lifetime. You will never achieve the result because it is only simile, which has no truth. The actual subject never comes up and hence, the exploitation is lifelong.

Similarly, if one understands the total subject of Shri Chakra, it is only to cut the bond with money. Several disciples already detached from money are in higher state than the preacher. This is not desirable to the preacher and hence, continues to maintain the false knowledge. If the preacher says to sacrifice the money so that the disciple can cut the bond with money, after sometime, the sacrifice may be stopped when the disciple says that he has achieved the result. On the other hand, the preacher says that an invisible wheel or Shri Chakra exists in the brain, which is seen by him; the disciples serve the preacher throughout their life since the non-existent wheel can never be seen by anybody.


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: True Knowledge Cannot be Replaced by False Knowledge
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2013, 07:13:28 PM »
Are you familiar with the Hindu Vedanta?


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: True Knowledge Cannot be Replaced by False Knowledge
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2014, 07:13:35 AM »
Are you familiar with the Hindu Vedanta?

Read the following carefully which is my will give some idea. The full text can be downloaded from (


Use of word Brahman & Para Brahman

Athaatah Parabrahma Vyakhyaasyaamah. -–Sutra.

(Then and therefore, we will discuss about Parabrahman)--Translation of Sutra.

   The word Brahman is used for God and for non-God items also, which are greatest among their categories.  Hence, confusion about the meaning of the word Brahman arose, which led to a number of splits in the arguments.  After this confusion (then) and since the confusion is to be solved (therefore), the word Para Brahman is introduced by the author of these sutras, Shri Datta Swami, to mean God only and not the other non-God items.--- Explanation of Sutra. 

Praamanikaabhyaam Prayujyate .

(The word Parabrahman is used by two authorities i.e., Krishna and Shankara)

   Krishna used this word in Gita (Anaadimat Param Brahma….) and Shankara also used in His prayer (Maunavyaakhyaa Prakatita Para Brahma…) and hence this word is quite ancient. You need not reject this word because it is used by a modern person like Datta Swami.  Generally, people give value to the ancient sages and not to the modern preachers.  However, this is not correct.  We should analyze the concept and decide its value.  A modern preacher like Sri RamaKrishna Paramahamsa is a good authority.  The ancient sage, Charvaka, is not an authority, who propagated atheism.  The author tries to satisfy the blind psychology of people regarding their taste for ancient sages through this Sutra, though analysis of the concept is the real ultimatum. 

Brahman means greatest according to its root word

Param Bhede Shreshthapunarukteh.

(The word Param in Gita means different and not great, since the latter results in the mistake of repetition)

    The word Param in Gita is generally interpreted to mean great.  But this interpretation is not correct, because the word Brahman already means greatest among the category.  If you say that the word param again means great, it results in the mistake of repetition of same sense of the word Brahman. Brahman means greatest according to its root word.   Hence, here, the word param means different. 

Param has both the meanings.  Here the word Brahman is restricted to imaginable greatest items in their respective categories.  The word Para Brahman means the unimaginable greatest God, who is different from the imaginable greatest items, which are represented by the word Brahman.  The word Para Brahman is also a combination of two words- Param and Brahman.  Both these words combined become the single word Para Brahman.  Hence, in Gita the two words are separately represented which can be combined to give the word Para Brahman.

In Veda God is said to be both Sat (existing) and Asat (non-existing)

Ubhayatra Sadasat Samanvayah.

(In Veda and Gita the words Sat and Asat are used in contradicting sense, but they can be correlated to mean the same by logical discussion.)

In Veda God is said to be both Sat and Asat (Sadeva Somya.., Asadvaa…). But in Gita God represented by Para Brahman is said to be neither Sat nor Asat (Nasat Naasaduchyate).  This appears to be a contradiction between Veda and Gita.  Sat means existence.  Asat means non-existence.  Let us take Veda.  When God is Sat, it means God is not Asat.  Similarly, when God is Asat, it means God is not sat. Hence, the resulting concept in each statement of Veda combined gives the concept of Gita.  Thus, Veda and Gita are correlated because Gita is said to be the essence of all Vedas. 

God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items

Jneyapurvaastitvaabhaavashcha Vidyate cha Shruteh.
(The existence of Para Brahman is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda).
   All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already.  If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists.  Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item. 
But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known.  Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items.  Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense.  This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat). 

God is known to God

Aatmajneyam Mahimevaasti.

(God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled.  For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle).

   Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge.  Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world.  When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted.  Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.


(The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature).
   To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist.  If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

God is known as unknown

Amatam Matamiti Shruyate Giyate cha.

(God is known as unknown.  This is said in Veda and in Gita also)

   Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions.  That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…).  Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.).  Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.
The unimaginable nature of God is elaborated in Veda by various statements

Aamnaaya Vistarat cha.

(The unimaginable nature of God is elaborated in Veda by various statements).

   Veda clearly elaborates the unimaginable nature of God through the following statements: Words cannot give knowledge of God (Yatovaachah, Na tatra vaak…).  Even mind cannot touch God (Apraapya Manasaa Saha).  Intelligence cannot reach God (Namedhayaa, Yo Buddheh Paratah..). You cannot understand God through logic (Naishaa Tarkena…, Atarkyah..).  Senses cannot grasp God (Nachakshushaa…, Aprameyah…, Atindriyam….).  All these statements have elaborated the concept of unimaginable nature of God by any means. 

Brahman is created by God

Brahma Yogat Vedaadishu Gitam Shrutam cha.

(The word Brahman is used in imaginable items like Veda through its root meaning i.e., greatest.  Such usage is found in Gita and its usage in other items is seen in Veda also.).

   In Gita it is said that Brahman is created by God (Brahmaakshara Samudbhavam).  Here Brahman cannot mean God.  It means the Veda, which is greatest among all the scriptures due to absence of additions and deletions, since Veda is protected by oral recitations from generations together.  The word Brahman is used in Veda to mean other greatest items like food (Annam Brahmeti…). Therefore, the word Brahman is not restricted to the unimaginable God and hence God is confused to be any greatest worldly item in its corresponding category.  For this reason only, the author would like to restrict the word Para Brahman to the unimaginable God only and avoid the confusion.

Inability of sages to understand the context in using the word Brahman

Aarshaprakaranasaamarthyaabhavat Kalahah.

(The present confusion and split are due to the absence of ability of the sages to take the meaning of the word Brahman according to the context).
   The ancient sages were having the divine ability to take the correct meaning of the word Brahman as per the context. Therefore, there was no confusion in the case of sages and hence the word Brahman was used to mean both the God and other greatest worldly items.  According to the context, either God or the worldly item was perfectly selected by the sages in the Veda.  Hence, there was no necessity of using a separate word like Para Brahman for God.  But, today, the human beings are not having such divine ability due to fall in their standards.  Hence, there is a real need for restricting God by an isolated word i.e., Para Brahman.

Unimaginable God differs from all other imaginable worldly objects

Shreshthamapyajneyam Bhidyate Paramata Eva.

(God and other worldly items are greatest.  But the unimaginable God differs from all other imaginable worldly objects.  Hence, the word Param meaning different is used before the word Brahman).

   A worldly item, greatest in its category is called as Brahman.  God also being greater than all these greatest items is really greatest and hence can be called as Brahman.  Thus, the ‘greatest’ sense of the word Brahman is common to God and all other greatest worldly items.  But, God being unimaginable differs from all the worldly items which are imaginable.  Hence, there is the common point and also point of difference between God and other worldly items.
 The word Brahman is used to God and other worldly items based on this common point.  While accepting the common point, the point of difference is added by the prefix word Param, which means different.  Thus, a new word is not created.  The word Brahman is maintained. But, for the sake of differentiation, an extra word, Param, is prefixed.  The word Param brings focus on the point of difference only and does not contradict the common point of greatest nature or Brahman. 

All the greatest worldly items remain greatest as long as the context of their categories is maintained
Ekameva Samdarbhamaatranaam .

(All the greatest worldly items remain greatest as long as the context of their categories is maintained.  Otherwise, if the contexts do not exist, God becomes greatest and all the worldly items are no more greatest.)

   Any worldly item, which is greatest in a particular category remains greatest as long as the context of the category is maintained.  If this context disappears and God is also referred, the worldly item is no more greatest, because God is greater than any greatest item.  When the context of the category is in reference, you cannot bring God into the picture to remove greatness of the worldly item.  It becomes out of the context.  Due to the significance of the context, you cannot say that no worldly item is greatest since God is greater than any greatest worldly item.  In view of the scope of the context, you cannot resist the usage of the word Brahman to any worldly item and thus you cannot fix the word Brahman to God only and avoid the context of the category.  Hence, an isolated word like Para Brahman is required. 

Veda says that God is known and seen

Vedaahamaikshadityavirodha Oupadhikam hi .

(Veda says that God is known and seen.  This does not contradict the above said unimaginable nature of God.  These statements only refer to the medium in to which God entered.)

   Veda says that God is not seen by eyes.  But the same Veda says else where that a fortunate devotee sees God (Kaschit Dhirah..).  Similarly, Veda says that God alone knows God.  But the same Veda says that a devotee knows God (Vedaahametam….).  This seems to be a contradiction in Veda.  But there is no contradiction, because God enters a medium for the sake of devotees.  Then the medium is charged by God and the verbs like known, seen etc., apply to the charged medium and not to the original God. 

A simile to the mediated God

Vidyullateva .

(An electric wire is seen but not the electricity.  This is a simile to the mediated God. )

   When the electricity charges the metallic wire, the wire is treated as the electricity.  The electric wire is seen but you can say that the electricity is seen.  The electricity is seen through the wire indirectly though not directly.  The electricity pervades all over the wire and when the wire is touched anywhere, the electricity is experienced through the touch of the wire.  Therefore, the verbs like seen, touched etc., apply to the wire and not to the electricity.  But, indirectly the electricity is experienced through the shock.  Similarly God is experienced through the medium, since the medium can be treated as God like the live wire.

God enters a living body

Suparnadvayashruteh Jivopaadhi Tat .

(Veda says that two birds are on a single tree.  This means that God enters a living body and is in association with the soul.)
   Veda says that God and soul exist together in a living body (Dvaasuparnaa…).  Therefore, the medium of God is always a living body and not any inert item in the world. The bird represents a living item. God is beyond living and inert items.  God can exhibit any property of any item because the items and properties of the world are generated from God only.  Hence, God exhibits the properties of life also, though He is beyond life.  Hence, God and soul are treated as two living items or two living birds.

The will of God does not mean that God is awareness


(The will of God does not mean that God is awareness.  It means only that the medium of God is not inert).

   Veda says that God wished to create this world (Sa Ekshata..).  People thought that this Vedic statement means that God is awareness and not inert energy or matter because awareness alone can wish.  This means that the medium of God is not inert.  This means that the medium of God is awareness.  The final conclusion is that God enters a living being as the medium and neither the inert statues nor the inert light etc.,(energy). Veda never speaks about the nature of original God because Veda has already spoken elaborately that the nature of God is unimaginable.  The Vedic statements regarding the nature of the medium are misunderstood to be the statements regarding the nature of original God.
Universal Spirituality for World Peace


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
Last post July 03, 2010, 05:36:22 AM
by fast
0 Replies
Last post July 21, 2010, 04:57:03 PM
by fast
0 Replies
Last post August 01, 2010, 02:25:22 PM
by fast
0 Replies
Last post November 24, 2010, 03:31:57 AM
by fast
0 Replies
Last post November 29, 2010, 11:14:02 AM
by fast
3 Replies
Last post July 09, 2011, 08:51:14 AM
by mistyone
0 Replies
Last post January 18, 2011, 04:40:52 PM
by fast
0 Replies
Last post October 07, 2012, 12:37:53 PM
by dattaswami1