Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest guest

Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

By Guest guest, in Vedic Astrology (Jyotisha)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

Bhattacharjya :

 

To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

 

You say:

 

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

that. " >>>

 

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

 

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

 

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara-siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

 

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya's habit of deliberately misquoting from

ancient texts is again proven here.

 

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

 

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

sutras 17-19.

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

 

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

Upanisha " >>>

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

of regard for truth.only.>>>

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

Saamkhya.

 

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

students who are now heads of departments.

 

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

going to use your abusive language.

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

-VJ

======================= ==

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Vinay ji, Sunil ji

 

[sunil ji if u r present in this group with any ID if not u r welcome to be here

and continue any thread here like everyone else, till then I will use my lines

only on what I understood of Vinajis post and less coments on urs. if at all it

is only implied no direct ref to u

 

FROM WHAT WE HEAR SWAMI VIVEKANDAND GOT FROM SRI RAMAKRISHNA PARAMAHIMSA DID HE

SEE GOD

and sri RK's reply are ample proof of such things that almighty can't be

percieved by anyone in doubt but one with faith, sincere and of course as

spiritual and satvic as the ppl there were

 

most of vedic knowledge, literature is complied from revelatiopns to rishies

thru their Tapasya, divya drishti their ineractions with the Divine are there in

many references

 

the avataras of Sri vishnu and his conversations with his avatara rivals who r

his own cursed devotees like Hiranaya kshya, and Hiranya kashyapu, ravana,

Kumbhakarna, Shishupala, kamsa etc are also of faith between a devotee even by

mistake they have only with deep faith [hatred] been still devout undivided so

had the chance to see the Vishva roopa even Drutharashtra in  Mahabharatha was

as lucky as Arjuna tosee the avatarapurusha in his short divya drishti blessed

by the Lord Vishnu himself.

 

drutharashtra got it as a gift and also knew he did not deserve it for long so

wanted it taken back, he knew his limitations did't he

so lets accept that it is for above normal HUMAN BEINGS TO PERCIEVE SUCH

phenominas as prathaykas pramana

 

REST IS UNDERSTOOD i GUESS

 

PRASHANT

 

 

 

 

________________________________

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:25:43 PM

Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

Bhattacharjya :

 

To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

 

You say:

 

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

that. " >>>

 

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

 

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

 

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

 

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

ancient texts is again proven here.

 

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

 

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

sutras 17-19.

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

Upanisha " >>>

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

of regard for truth.only.> >>

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

Saamkhya.

 

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

students who are now heads of departments.

 

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

going to use your abusive language.

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

-VJ

============ ========= == ==

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Vinay Jha,

 

Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

 

The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

 

 

Hope you understand

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> Bhattacharjya :

>

> To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

>

> You say:

>

> <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> that. " >>>

>

> You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

>

> Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

>

> Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

>

> And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara-siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

>

> Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya's habit of deliberately misquoting from

> ancient texts is again proven here.

>

> Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

>

> Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> sutras 17-19.

>

> I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

>

> Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

>

> You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

>

>

> <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> Upanisha " >>>

>

> I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

>

> Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

>

> You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

>

> <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> of regard for truth.only.>>>

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> Saamkhya.

>

> I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> students who are now heads of departments.

>

> I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> going to use your abusive language.

>

> Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> out-of-context misinterpretation.

>

> -VJ

> ======================= ==

>

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

 

this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED IN 

MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

 

at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainment than

discussion on such threads.

 

here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

 

except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts  others have been

discussed here as well

 

if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that  ALREADY SO UP TO

HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

 

FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal

 

that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

 

 

prashant

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay Jha,

 

Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

 

The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

 

Hope you understand

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

>

> Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> Bhattacharjya :

>

> To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

>

> You say:

>

> <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> that. " >>>

>

> You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

>

> Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

>

> Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

>

> And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

>

> Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> ancient texts is again proven here.

>

> Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

>

> Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> sutras 17-19.

>

> I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

>

> Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

>

> You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

>

>

> <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> Upanisha " >>>

>

> I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

>

> Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

>

> You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

>

> <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> of regard for truth.only.> >>

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> Saamkhya.

>

> I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> students who are now heads of departments.

>

> I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> going to use your abusive language.

>

> Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> out-of-context misinterpretation.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= == ==

>

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Prashant ji,

 

I don't know what is this game on the net.

 

All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks likes.....

 

Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice based

on somebody's article.

 

The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that it is

the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

 

Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all his

life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

 

Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

 

A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

 

You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by them

near the busy market corner.

 

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

wrote:

>

> Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

>

> this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED

IN  MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

>

> at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainment than

discussion on such threads.

>

> here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

>

> except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts  others have been

discussed here as well

>

> if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that  ALREADY SO UP

TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

>

> FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal

>

> that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

>

>

> prashant

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Dear Vinay Jha,

>

> Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

>

> The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

>

> Hope you understand

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > Bhattacharjya :

> >

> > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> >

> > You say:

> >

> > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > that. " >>>

> >

> > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> >

> > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> >

> > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> >

> > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> >

> > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > ancient texts is again proven here.

> >

> > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> >

> > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > sutras 17-19.

> >

> > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

> > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> >

> > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> >

> > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > Upanisha " >>>

> >

> > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> >

> > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> >

> > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

> > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > Saamkhya.

> >

> > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > students who are now heads of departments.

> >

> > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > going to use your abusive language.

> >

> > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= == ==

> >

> >

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Suresh ji,

 

a good analogy.

 

but the area I comented was surely on the fact that Almighty is pereieveable to

the blessed ones by their samskaras or poorva janma vasanas, this life can also

give chances for improving ones karma and can help reach such levels to see any

glimpses of such Divine forms directly or in some one elses form- indirect help

from the blue.

 

but the 2 members hsere Sunil B and Vinay ji have had a series of of exchanges

only on conflicting terms with a fixed view from both sides and after being

provoked to reply we see some of these threads go on and on till a new tail

piece becomes a new thread of contention so

 

INSTEAD OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING IT IS a battle of who can out do other.

 

BUT NO GREAT LOSS AS WE DO GET SOME INPUTS FOR OUR OWN STUDY ON MANY TOPICS we

can do it for our own betterment and need not be participating in the battle as

we r more explorers they r establised in sime of their topics when we can attain

such levels may be do our bit

 

many topics they r discussion r worth knowing sincerely from a academic

enhancement point of view we can find our own sources to quench the thirst in it

after all most of these r inter-related and have a role in understanding life,

karma its chain in our lives past, preset and future

 

only human beings r given the discerning, discriminating powers so we have to

use them and these r catalysts for us

 

 

i entered the area only that is known and accepted on Pratyaksha pramana of gd

as real for the blessed

and it cant be denied that it cant happen at all.

 

Prashant

 

 

 

 

________________________________

sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:51:39 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Prashant ji,

 

I don't know what is this game on the net.

 

All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks likes.....

 

Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice based

on somebody's article.

 

The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that it is

the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

 

Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all his

life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

 

Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

 

A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

 

You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by them

near the busy market corner.

 

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@. ..>

wrote:

>

> Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

>

> this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED IN

MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

>

> at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

>

> here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

>

> except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been

discussed here as well

>

> if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP

TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

>

> FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal

>

> that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

>

>

> prashant

>

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...>

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Dear Vinay Jha,

>

> Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

>

> The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

>

> Hope you understand

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > Bhattacharjya :

> >

> > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> >

> > You say:

> >

> > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > that. " >>>

> >

> > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> >

> > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> >

> > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> >

> > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> >

> > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > ancient texts is again proven here.

> >

> > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> >

> > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > sutras 17-19.

> >

> > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

> > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> >

> > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> >

> > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > Upanisha " >>>

> >

> > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> >

> > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> >

> > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

> > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > Saamkhya.

> >

> > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > students who are now heads of departments.

> >

> > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > going to use your abusive language.

> >

> > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= == ==

> >

> >

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Prashant ji,

 

You are very much right.

 

If we want to argue on these subjects we can do so all our life and yet not

reach anywhere. However, discussions for the sake of understanding and learning

from each other will be much fruitfull by tons.

 

Once while during a discussions, our Swamiji (head of our community Math) told a

simple story.

 

When the mango tree blossoms its leaves and the mango seed all point upwards.

but as the mangos grow bigger & bigger it slowly bends its head towards the

ground in humbleness.

 

Hearing this we understood what he meant and our head bend down - in shame.

 

All these Vedic knowledge, scriptures, epics has been handed over to us not to

just learn them and glot over, But to live it every day of our life atleast in

minute way.

 

By the way, I forgot to mention the comment by a passer by - If these fools had

worked hard, instead of quarelling over which car is better, they might earn

something atleast to buy a bike.

 

" akaashat patitam toyam "

yatha gachati sagarm "

sarva deva namaskaram

keshavam pratigachati "

 

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

wrote:

>

> Dear Suresh ji,

>

> a good analogy.

>

> but the area I comented was surely on the fact that Almighty is pereieveable

to the blessed ones by their samskaras or poorva janma vasanas, this life can

also give chances for improving ones karma and can help reach such levels to see

any glimpses of such Divine forms directly or in some one elses form- indirect

help from the blue.

>

> but the 2 members hsere Sunil B and Vinay ji have had a series of of exchanges

only on conflicting terms with a fixed view from both sides and after being

provoked to reply we see some of these threads go on and on till a new tail

piece becomes a new thread of contention so

>

> INSTEAD OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING IT IS a battle of who can out do other.

>

> BUT NO GREAT LOSS AS WE DO GET SOME INPUTS FOR OUR OWN STUDY ON MANY TOPICS we

can do it for our own betterment and need not be participating in the battle as

we r more explorers they r establised in sime of their topics when we can attain

such levels may be do our bit

>

> many topics they r discussion r worth knowing sincerely from a academic

enhancement point of view we can find our own sources to quench the thirst in it

after all most of these r inter-related and have a role in understanding life,

karma its chain in our lives past, preset and future

>

> only human beings r given the discerning, discriminating powers so we have to

use them and these r catalysts for us

>

>

> i entered the area only that is known and accepted on Pratyaksha pramana of gd

as real for the blessed

> and it cant be denied that it cant happen at all.

>

> Prashant

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:51:39 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Dear Prashant ji,

>

> I don't know what is this game on the net.

>

> All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks likes.....

>

> Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

>

> The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that it

is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

>

> Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

>

> Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

>

> A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

>

> You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

>

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

>

> , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@ ..>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> >

> > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED

IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

> >

> > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

> >

> > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

> >

> > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have

been discussed here as well

> >

> > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> >

> > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> >

> > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

> >

> >

> > prashant

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Vinay Jha,

> >

> > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> >

> > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> >

> > Hope you understand

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > Bhattacharjya :

> > >

> > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > >

> > > You say:

> > >

> > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > that. " >>>

> > >

> > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > >

> > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > >

> > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > >

> > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > >

> > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > >

> > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > >

> > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > sutras 17-19.

> > >

> > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > >

> > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > >

> > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > Upanisha " >>>

> > >

> > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > >

> > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > >

> > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > >

> > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > Saamkhya.

> > >

> > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > >

> > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > going to use your abusive language.

> > >

> > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > > ============ ========= == ==

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

:-)

 

But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two beggars and

the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that others can avoid

the mistakes they have made!

 

When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular brank of cycle

named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas is carrying me, I must

be as important as Planet Earth (a little Sumerian joke!) "

 

Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not fall off the

bike ;-)

 

He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned a bicycle!

 

RR

 

 

, " sureshbabuag " <sureshbabuag

wrote:

>

>

> Dear Prashant ji,

>

> I don't know what is this game on the net.

>

> All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks likes.....

>

> Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

>

> The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that it

is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

>

> Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

>

> Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

>

> A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

>

> You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

>

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> >

> > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED

IN  MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

> >

> > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainment than

discussion on such threads.

> >

> > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

> >

> > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts  others have

been discussed here as well

> >

> > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that  ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> >

> > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> >

> > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

> >

> >

> > prashant

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Vinay Jha,

> >

> > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> >

> > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> >

> > Hope you understand

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > Bhattacharjya :

> > >

> > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > >

> > > You say:

> > >

> > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > that. " >>>

> > >

> > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > >

> > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > >

> > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > >

> > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > >

> > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > >

> > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > >

> > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > sutras 17-19.

> > >

> > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > >

> > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > >

> > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > Upanisha " >>>

> > >

> > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > >

> > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > >

> > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > >

> > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > Saamkhya.

> > >

> > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > >

> > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > going to use your abusive language.

> > >

> > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > > ============ ========= == ==

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

To all concerned,

 

1)

 

Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana and that he ordered for the

same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya varsha. First he should read

the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope this is clear to him.

 

2)

I found that Vinay Jha does not know Sanskrit and he has given enough proof of

that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses. In Sutra

1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and prception does not apply to yoga.

In yoga the perception is not true external perception and secondly Yoga does

talk about an Isvara, who is separate from the Purushas. This perception does

not apply to Ishvara as Ishrara cannot be perceived. Sankhya does not bring in

Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be proved.  In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is

devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates

from prakriti and becomes omnicient and omnipotent (once again).  In that sense

there is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha cannot understand this and that is why

he calls Sankhya as advaita. Sankhya does not deny Ishvara. Sankhya is Godless

in its treatment

ie.it does not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic.  Sankhya

speaks of Purusha and Prakriti and because of this duality Sanlkhya is

Dvaita. Even Yoga is Dvaita as it talks about purusha and Ishvara.

 

3)

In sutra 5.116 what it says that in meditation, in deep sleep and on liberation

(emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra 4.17 to 4.19 what

Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one cannot gain the knowledge

unless there is reflexion. One has to be respectful to the teacher, be dutiful

and must practice to gain the required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya leaves its

dualism like the Advaita does.

 

4)

 

Quote

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out of

context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet you talk

about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not want to make

similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial of Purusha being

Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Unquote

 

Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's book. Now he

took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and misinterpreted it. I

never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is said in the Veda and Vedanta. I

only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and that according to Sankhya the existence of

Ishvara cannot be proved. Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

 

As regards Ishvara the Yoga sutra says that " Om " is the Vachaka of Ishvara. Yet

Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the same. Rather it says

that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic scholars know that Om is

Brahman.

 

5)

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient scriptures

against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said spiritual knowledge

cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

Unquote

 

What is the use of misinterpreted knowledge. It should be rather called a

negative knowledge. Negative knowledge is more harmful than no knowledge.

 

6)

 

Quote

 

 

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Unquote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that upanishadic

level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

 

7)

 

Quote

 

 

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

Unquote

 

I am not making a mockery of Gita. Vinay Jha thinks that the highest truths can

be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to take a student step

by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a schoolboy he will tell him

about the quarks and antiquarks etc.straightway and will not start the way it is

done academically step by step through different levels. Probably Vinay Jha

thinks himself more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

 

8)

 

Quote

 

 

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see whether

Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject matter of Samkhya

and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul and Brahman, but it does

not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely cited, without providing the

verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

Unquote

 

Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6  of Svetasvatara upanishad and ypu

will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter you can read other allied

verses such as the verse  5 of chapter 4 and the verses  7, 8 and 12 of chapter

5 of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

9)

 

Quote

 

 

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which will decide

who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the reference to siddhi of

Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

Unquote

 

In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members will be able

to judge who is what.

 

Sincerely

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 7/14/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

[vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Wrongly !!!

vedic astrology

Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da & To All concerned,

 

 

 

You say:

 

 

 

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

 

that. " >>>

 

 

 

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

 

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

 

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

 

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

 

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

 

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

 

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

 

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

 

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

 

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

 

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

 

 

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

 

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

 

 

 

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

 

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

 

 

 

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

 

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

 

 

 

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

 

ancient texts is again proven here.

 

 

 

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

 

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

 

 

 

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

 

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

 

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

 

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

 

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

 

sutras 17-19.

 

 

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

 

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

 

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

 

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

 

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

 

 

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

 

 

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

 

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

 

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

 

 

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanisha " >>>

 

 

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

 

 

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

 

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

 

 

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

 

 

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

 

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

 

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

 

of regard for truth.only.> >>

 

 

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

 

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

 

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

 

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

 

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

 

 

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

 

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

 

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

 

students who are now heads of departments.

 

 

 

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

 

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

 

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

 

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

 

going to use your abusive language.

 

 

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

 

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

 

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

 

out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

 

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= == ==

 

 

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

wrote:

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM

 

>

 

> Vinay,

 

>

 

> Please do not make vague statements.

 

>

 

> 1)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

 

> is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

 

him

 

> or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

 

actually

 

> not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

> philosophy.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

 

example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

 

a serious scholar will make.

 

>

 

> 2)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

 

the

 

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

 

> each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

 

> Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

 

> of later scholars.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

 

one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

 

mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

 

never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

 

Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

 

latter a special purusha.

 

>

 

> Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

 

> latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

 

> once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

 

on

 

> that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

 

>

 

> 3)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

 

Saamkhya

 

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

 

> " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

 

Soul.

 

> since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

 

> attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

 

> Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

 

> nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

 

> basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

 

> says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

 

> theistic philosophies.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

 

from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

 

as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

 

to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

 

the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

 

qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

 

>

 

> 4)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda

 

> for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

 

> Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

 

> misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

 

of

 

> principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

 

> Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

 

> means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

 

> Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

 

> without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

 

> jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

 

wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

 

and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

 

according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

 

originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

 

conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

 

about these big subjects.

 

>

 

> 5)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

 

Brahmasutra

 

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

 

this

 

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

> only One is in Many.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

 

says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

 

>

 

> 6)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Yes an ignorant person will say so:

 

>

 

> 7)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

 

his

 

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

 

the

 

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

 

Ajna

 

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

 

meaning

 

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

 

not

 

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

 

discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

 

different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

 

Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

 

Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

 

to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

 

> By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad.

 

>

 

> 8)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by

 

> means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

 

One

 

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that

 

> he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

 

> is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

 

> sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

 

> sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

 

sanyaasa,

 

> but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

 

access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

 

Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

 

maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

 

that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

 

>

 

> 9)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

 

in

 

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

 

> in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

 

not

 

> a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

 

> was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

 

you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

 

any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

 

sex so often that it borders on prversity.

 

>

 

> 10)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

 

> follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

 

not

 

> given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

 

samskaara.

 

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

 

> who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

 

Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

 

about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

 

taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

 

then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

 

latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

 

took his decision.

 

>

 

> 11)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

 

> is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

 

brahmacharya

 

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

 

> sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

 

with

 

> the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

 

> for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

 

not

 

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

 

> never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

 

still

 

> say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is

 

> totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

 

> according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

 

> attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

 

has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

 

speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and

 

lack of regard for truth.only.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> To All,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

 

in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

 

anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

 

his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

philosophy.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

 

at that. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

" Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

 

singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

 

but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

 

a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

 

scholars.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

 

" Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

 

Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

 

Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

 

Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

 

Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

 

the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

 

Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

 

says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

 

that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

 

much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

 

be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

 

philosophies.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

 

Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

 

that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

 

to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

 

basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

 

Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

 

and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

 

(spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

 

The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

 

tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

 

proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

 

which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

 

is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

only One is in Many.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

 

srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

 

inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

 

(ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

 

of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

 

be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

 

sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

 

can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

 

unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

 

are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

 

one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

 

downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

 

sanyashi " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

 

" >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

(libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

 

many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

 

his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

 

brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

 

therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

 

Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

 

Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

 

But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

 

cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

 

egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

 

the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

 

so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

 

libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

 

" Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

 

me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

 

marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

 

said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

 

that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

> grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

 

to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

 

watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ===== =====

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear friends,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

 

Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

 

that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

 

free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

 

attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

 

the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

 

gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

 

leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

 

purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

 

did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

 

not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

 

Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

 

of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

 

Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

 

The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

 

Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

 

Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

 

to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

 

a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

 

an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

 

sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

 

sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

 

claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

 

gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

 

ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

 

Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

 

of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

 

>

 

> and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

 

the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sincerely,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

 

declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

 

thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

 

discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

 

should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

 

is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

 

synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

 

Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

 

culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

 

summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

 

iceberg.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

 

not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

 

Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

 

purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

 

everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

 

now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

 

is relative to the observer " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

 

is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

 

philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

 

philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

 

should learn it properly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

 

of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

 

as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

 

chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

 

Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

 

astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ========= ========= = ===

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Jhaaji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

 

about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

 

prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

 

says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

 

clarify this point.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

 

everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

 

interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

 

philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

 

religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

 

religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

 

philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

 

philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

 

terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

 

qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

 

terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

 

world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

 

he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

 

HOME,.where is this paralok?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

 

generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

 

science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

 

which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

 

especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

 

think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

 

on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

 

agree with me with the details.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

 

dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

 

astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

 

share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

 

sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinay,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Good write-up.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > A few clarifications please.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 1)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

 

not

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

 

term

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 2)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

 

cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Are these your own computations?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 3)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

 

observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

 

the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

 

was known to the modern science

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Best wishes,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Malla Ji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

 

or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

 

and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

 

of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

 

which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

 

and Matter and all other material properties.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

 

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

 

panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

 

of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

 

sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

 

Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

 

it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

 

and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

 

Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

 

by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

 

subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

 

Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

 

Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

 

of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

 

bhootas.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

 

scientific terms?>>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

 

which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

 

material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

 

constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

 

plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

 

24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

 

culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

 

jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

 

dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

 

universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

 

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

 

" ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

 

Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

 

Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

 

false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

 

Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

 

Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

 

rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

 

13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

 

are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

 

and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

 

original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

 

tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

 

intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

 

and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

 

> 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

 

even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

 

Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

 

Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

 

Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

 

quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

 

by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

 

sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

 

coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

 

always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

 

coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

 

colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

 

organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

 

Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

 

categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > supercomputer

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

 

particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

 

intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

 

hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

 

quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

 

socalled intelligence.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

 

modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

 

operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

 

3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

 

individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

 

after one !!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ============ ========= ===== ==

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

 

quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

 

the the witnessed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

 

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

 

witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

 

observed)?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

 

terms?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ..

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

 

....> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

 

Excellent!!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Best regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

 

Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

 

Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

 

Material World.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

 

Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

 

its Creator.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Dear sirs,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

 

discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

 

Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

 

universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

 

achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

 

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > Hmmm...!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

 

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

 

is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

 

third side of this strange coin.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

 

a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

 

Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

 

the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

 

a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

 

space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

 

with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

 

mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

 

a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

 

expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

 

the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

 

which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

 

overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

 

a new idea in science, and is

 

> known as Oscillating

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Universe,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

 

digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

 

the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

 

stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

 

speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

 

everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

 

eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

 

speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

 

their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

 

the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

 

to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > JR

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Shenoy Ji,

 

Sunil B has a habit of posting his replies to me in other forums where the

discussion is not taking place, hence I also did the same, but I did not know he

is not a member of JR. It was a lapse on my part, Sorry!

 

-VJ

 

========================== ===

 

 

________________________________

sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay Jha,

 

Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

 

The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

 

Hope you understand

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

>

> Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> Bhattacharjya :

>

> To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

>

> You say:

>

> <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> that. " >>>

>

> You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

>

> Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

>

> Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

>

> And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

>

> Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> ancient texts is again proven here.

>

> Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

>

> Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> sutras 17-19.

>

> I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

>

> Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

>

> You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

>

>

> <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> Upanisha " >>>

>

> I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

>

> Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

>

> You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

>

> <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> of regard for truth.only.> >>

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> Saamkhya.

>

> I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> students who are now heads of departments.

>

> I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> going to use your abusive language.

>

> Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> out-of-context misinterpretation.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= == ==

>

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Sunil Bhattacharjya usually posts many of his replies to me on other fora

without informing me about it, hence I also started the same, but I did not know

Sunil Bhattacharjya was not a member of JR. Sorry for the lapse !

 

-VJ

 

================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:45:17 PM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

 

this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED IN

MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

 

at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

 

here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

 

except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been

discussed here as well

 

if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO

HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

 

FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal

 

that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

 

prashant

 

____________ _________ _________ __

sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

Dear Vinay Jha,

 

Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

 

The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

 

Hope you understand

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

>

> Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> Bhattacharjya :

>

> To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

>

> You say:

>

> <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> that. " >>>

>

> You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

>

> Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

>

> Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

>

> And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

>

> Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> ancient texts is again proven here.

>

> Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

>

> Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> sutras 17-19.

>

> I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

>

> Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

>

> You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

>

>

> <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> Upanisha " >>>

>

> I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

>

> Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

>

> You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

>

> <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> of regard for truth.only.> >>

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> Saamkhya.

>

> I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> students who are now heads of departments.

>

> I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> going to use your abusive language.

>

> Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> out-of-context misinterpretation.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= == ==

>

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Vinay jha,

 

If you are doing the same thing he is doing, what, may I ask is the difference

between him and you - a monk??

 

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

 

 

 

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Shenoy Ji,

>

> Sunil B has a habit of posting his replies to me in other forums where the

discussion is not taking place, hence I also did the same, but I did not know he

is not a member of JR. It was a lapse on my part, Sorry!

>

> -VJ

>

> ========================== ===

>

>

> ________________________________

> sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Dear Vinay Jha,

>

> Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

>

> The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

>

> Hope you understand

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > Bhattacharjya :

> >

> > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> >

> > You say:

> >

> > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > that. " >>>

> >

> > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> >

> > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> >

> > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> >

> > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> >

> > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > ancient texts is again proven here.

> >

> > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> >

> > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > sutras 17-19.

> >

> > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

> > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> >

> > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> >

> > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > Upanisha " >>>

> >

> > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> >

> > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> >

> > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

> > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > Saamkhya.

> >

> > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > students who are now heads of departments.

> >

> > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > going to use your abusive language.

> >

> > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= == ==

> >

> >

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Suresh Ji,

 

You are putting things in wrong perspective. I may be a beggar discussing the

luxury of Spiritual Knowledge, but the theme here was not Spiritual Knowledge,

but insincerity and dishonesty by a person who falsely quotes Mahabharata,

Puranas, ancient siddhantas, and now Saamkhya, just because he has to falsify

everything I say. Lacking arguments, he needs the authority of ancient texts

which he uses falsely. If Saamkhya says Ishvara is proven, why anyone should

quote Saamkhya for the opposite view ? Moreover, I made many requests to him not

to divert discussions to non-astrological topics in astrological fora. he is not

an astrologer. I left AIA due to abuses by Sreenash and Sunil Bhattachatjya,

then he became a member of JG and VJ merely to harass me. I have least of

interest in discussing philosophy in astrological fora, I do not discuss

philosophy even at proper fora, because philosophy is for me a thing to be

practiced and not to be lectured about.

When Sunil Bhattachatjya learnt i was a monk, he advised me twice that two

tolas of wine per day is good for health. It is his brand of Saamkhya. It is not

discussion, but attacks and abuses. He calls me " idiot " & c, and moderators of

those fora pass such abusive mails. When I complained to the moderator of VJ, I

was asked not to reply to Sunil Bhattachatjya's abusive mails (which contained

pseudo-scholarly false references from ancient texts merely for proving me

wrong, hence my replies were necessary).

 

-VJ

 

=========================== ==

 

 

________________________________

sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:51:39 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Prashant ji,

 

I don't know what is this game on the net.

 

All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks likes.....

 

Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice based

on somebody's article.

 

The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that it is

the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

 

Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all his

life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

 

Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

 

A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

 

You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by them

near the busy market corner.

 

A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

 

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@. ..>

wrote:

>

> Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

>

> this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED IN

MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

>

> at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

>

> here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

>

> except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been

discussed here as well

>

> if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP

TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

>

> FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal

>

> that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

>

>

> prashant

>

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...>

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Dear Vinay Jha,

>

> Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

>

> The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the

forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't

you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have

posted it?.

>

> Hope you understand

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > Bhattacharjya :

> >

> > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> >

> > You say:

> >

> > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > that. " >>>

> >

> > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> >

> > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> >

> > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> >

> > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> >

> > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > ancient texts is again proven here.

> >

> > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> >

> > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > sutras 17-19.

> >

> > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

> > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> >

> > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> >

> > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > Upanisha " >>>

> >

> > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> >

> > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> >

> > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

> > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > Saamkhya.

> >

> > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > students who are now heads of departments.

> >

> > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > going to use your abusive language.

> >

> > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= == ==

> >

> >

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

<<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and share

their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

have made!>>>

 

well said Rohini Da !!

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

:-)

 

But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two beggars and

the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that others can avoid

the mistakes they have made!

 

When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular brank of cycle

named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas is carrying me, I must

be as important as Planet Earth (a little Sumerian joke!) "

 

Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not fall off the

bike ;-)

 

He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned a bicycle!

 

RR

 

, " sureshbabuag " <sureshbabuag@ ...>

wrote:

>

>

> Dear Prashant ji,

>

> I don't know what is this game on the net.

>

> All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks likes.....

>

> Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

>

> The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that it

is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

>

> Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

>

> Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

>

> A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

>

> You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

>

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> >

> > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT ALLOWED

IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners, moderators

with a agenda of their own

> >

> > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

> >

> > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other

groups

> >

> > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have

been discussed here as well

> >

> > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> >

> > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> >

> > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of

debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even

now.

> >

> >

> > prashant

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Vinay Jha,

> >

> > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> >

> > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> >

> > Hope you understand

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > Bhattacharjya :

> > >

> > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > >

> > > You say:

> > >

> > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > that. " >>>

> > >

> > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > >

> > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > >

> > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > >

> > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > >

> > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > >

> > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > >

> > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > sutras 17-19.

> > >

> > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > >

> > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > >

> > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > Upanisha " >>>

> > >

> > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > >

> > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > >

> > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > >

> > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > Saamkhya.

> > >

> > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > >

> > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > going to use your abusive language.

> > >

> > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > > ============ ========= == ==

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Vinay-Ji,

 

Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are blessed to

*give*, in a sense!

 

When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was blind and

looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas probably secondary to

small pox or other infection. At first I used to be scared of him because he

looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic and still had this smile that

perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or a plea for help, but so fixed! And

the white corneas and all that.

 

Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my parents who

were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it or shared their

feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back in 50s that was not done.

 

Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that winter was

coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously failing health. I

was touched! Modern children would have hugged their parents and all that, of

course that was a NO NO back then but I was touched within!

 

When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I was

surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He had the same

gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the blanket and so on.

 

He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on his face

with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was a chilly day and

he was visibly shivering@

 

I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why did he not

wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

 

Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to learn Karma

and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

 

I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided to not

change his path and practice!

 

Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! Hence my

cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too glibly and recklessly!

 

Best regards,

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and share

> their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> have made!>>>

>

> well said Rohini Da !!

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> :-)

>

> But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two beggars

and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that others can

avoid the mistakes they have made!

>

> When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular brank of cycle

named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas is carrying me, I must

be as important as Planet Earth (a little Sumerian joke!) "

>

> Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not fall off

the bike ;-)

>

> He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned a

bicycle!

>

> RR

>

> , " sureshbabuag " <sureshbabuag@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Prashant ji,

> >

> > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> >

> > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks

likes.....

> >

> > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

> >

> > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that

it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> >

> > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

> >

> > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

> >

> > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

> >

> > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

> >

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > >

> > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT

ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners,

moderators with a agenda of their own

> > >

> > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

> > >

> > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and

other groups

> > >

> > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have

been discussed here as well

> > >

> > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > >

> > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> > >

> > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter

of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god

even now.

> > >

> > >

> > > prashant

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > >

> > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> > >

> > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> > >

> > > Hope you understand

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > >

> > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > >

> > > > You say:

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > > that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > >

> > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > >

> > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > >

> > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > >

> > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > >

> > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > > >

> > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > >

> > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > > >

> > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > > >

> > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > > Saamkhya.

> > > >

> > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > >

> > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > >

> > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Namaskaar to all the respected members,

 

  There's been quite a lot talk about this topic in past couple days. I'm not at

all an intellegent person to advice any of all you scholars, but just a small

suggestion : I think by now, Mr. Sunil Bhattachariya must have understood pretty

what mistake he made, and will surely try not to make sucha mistake again and

make sure he follows the rules before making any comments/suggestions. I (with

my ignorant & unintelligent mind) am realizing that the topic has entirly

shifted from one direction to other. I'd give a humble suggestion to stop

blaming, cursing or preaching and start moving to what you guys are best at

doing: Helping others make their future right, and saving them from their

problems.

 

  Please consider my request, and give a second thought on this topic. We can

continue the debate of existance of all-almighty in tengible or intengible, feel

or belief terms in a different topic, or atleast change to subject of the topic

in further mails.

 

  Please forgive me if I've said anything off-topic, or it hurted anyone's

feelings. I did find a lot of inspiring and educating stuff in these mails, but

still I feel it's drifting and going off actual topic.  

Thanks & Regards

Vikas Verma

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:54:43 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Vinay-Ji,

 

Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are blessed to

*give*, in a sense!

 

When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was blind and

looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas probably secondary to

small pox or other infection. At first I used to be scared of him because he

looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic and still had this smile that

perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or a plea for help, but so fixed! And

the white corneas and all that.

 

Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my parents who

were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it or shared their

feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back in 50s that was not done.

 

Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that winter was

coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously failing health. I

was touched! Modern children would have hugged their parents and all that, of

course that was a NO NO back then but I was touched within!

 

When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I was

surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He had the same

gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the blanket and so on.

 

He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on his face

with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was a chilly day and

he was visibly shivering@

 

I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why did he not

wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

 

Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to learn Karma

and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

 

I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided to not

change his path and practice!

 

Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! Hence my

cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too glibly and recklessly!

 

Best regards,

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and share

> their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> have made!>>>

>

> well said Rohini Da !!

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> :-)

>

> But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two beggars

and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that others can

avoid the mistakes they have made!

>

> When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular brank of cycle

named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas is carrying me, I must

be as important as Planet Earth (a little Sumerian joke!) "

>

> Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not fall off

the bike ;-)

>

> He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned a

bicycle!

>

> RR

>

> , " sureshbabuag " <sureshbabuag@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Prashant ji,

> >

> > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> >

> > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks

likes.....

> >

> > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

> >

> > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that

it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> >

> > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

> >

> > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

> >

> > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

> >

> > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

> >

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > >

> > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT

ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners,

moderators with a agenda of their own

> > >

> > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

> > >

> > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and

other groups

> > >

> > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have

been discussed here as well

> > >

> > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > >

> > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> > >

> > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter

of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god

even now.

> > >

> > >

> > > prashant

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > >

> > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> > >

> > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> > >

> > > Hope you understand

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > >

> > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > >

> > > > You say:

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > > that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > >

> > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > >

> > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > >

> > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > >

> > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > >

> > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > > >

> > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > >

> > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > > >

> > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > > >

> > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > > Saamkhya.

> > > >

> > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > >

> > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > >

> > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Vikas Ji,

 

The topic of SKB is over now, he diverted the topic on Siddhantic Jyotisha to

personal attacks and abuses. He is a retired chemist, not an astrologer, and I

requested him many a times not to raise non-astrological issues.

 

-VJ

======================== =============

 

 

________________________________

Vikas Verma <verma_vicky

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:30:22 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Namaskaar to all the respected members,

 

There's been quite a lot talk about this topic in past couple days. I'm not at

all an intellegent person to advice any of all you scholars, but just a small

suggestion : I think by now, Mr. Sunil Bhattachariya must have understood

pretty what mistake he made, and will surely try not to make sucha mistake again

and make sure he follows the rules before making any comments/suggestion s. I

(with my ignorant & unintelligent mind) am realizing that the topic has entirly

shifted from one direction to other. I'd give a humble suggestion to stop

blaming, cursing or preaching and start moving to what you guys are best at

doing: Helping others make their future right, and saving them from their

problems.

 

Please consider my request, and give a second thought on this topic. We can

continue the debate of existance of all-almighty in tengible or intengible, feel

or belief terms in a different topic, or atleast change to subject of the topic

in further mails.

 

Please forgive me if I've said anything off-topic, or it hurted anyone's

feelings. I did find a lot of inspiring and educating stuff in these mails, but

still I feel it's drifting and going off actual topic.

Thanks & Regards

Vikas Verma

 

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ hotmail.com>

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:54:43 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

Vinay-Ji,

 

Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are blessed to

*give*, in a sense!

 

When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was blind and

looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas probably secondary to

small pox or other infection. At first I used to be scared of him because he

looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic and still had this smile that

perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or a plea for help, but so fixed! And

the white corneas and all that.

 

Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my parents who

were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it or shared their

feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back in 50s that was not done.

 

Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that winter was

coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously failing health. I

was touched! Modern children would have hugged their parents and all that, of

course that was a NO NO back then but I was touched within!

 

When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I was

surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He had the same

gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the blanket and so on.

 

He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on his face

with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was a chilly day and

he was visibly shivering@

 

I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why did he not

wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

 

Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to learn Karma

and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

 

I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided to not

change his path and practice!

 

Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! Hence my

cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too glibly and recklessly!

 

Best regards,

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and share

> their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> have made!>>>

>

> well said Rohini Da !!

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> :-)

>

> But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two beggars

and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that others can

avoid the mistakes they have made!

>

> When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular brank of cycle

named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas is carrying me, I must

be as important as Planet Earth (a little Sumerian joke!) "

>

> Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not fall off

the bike ;-)

>

> He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned a

bicycle!

>

> RR

>

> , " sureshbabuag " <sureshbabuag@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Prashant ji,

> >

> > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> >

> > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks

likes.....

> >

> > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

> >

> > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that

it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> >

> > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

> >

> > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

> >

> > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

> >

> > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

> >

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > >

> > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT

ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners,

moderators with a agenda of their own

> > >

> > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

> > >

> > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and

other groups

> > >

> > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have

been discussed here as well

> > >

> > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > >

> > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> > >

> > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter

of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god

even now.

> > >

> > >

> > > prashant

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > >

> > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> > >

> > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> > >

> > > Hope you understand

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > >

> > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > >

> > > > You say:

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > > that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > >

> > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > >

> > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > >

> > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > >

> > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > >

> > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > > >

> > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > >

> > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > > >

> > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > > >

> > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > > Saamkhya.

> > > >

> > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > >

> > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > >

> > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Rohini Da,

 

<<< I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever tried too

hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! >>>

 

We can change only ourselves, not others. Even God can change only those who are

ready for it. Was it possible to change a Ravana or a Duryodhana ?

 

The problem is we are always trying to find the Ravana in others, not within

ourselves. The Collective Unconscious of Jung is the triguni Prakriti which is

Jada/Jara (Unconscious). It is present in all of us. It must be got rid of ;

that is moksha.

 

-VJ

==================================== ===

 

 

________________________________

Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:24:43 AM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Vinay-Ji,

 

Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are blessed to

*give*, in a sense!

 

When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was blind and

looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas probably secondary to

small pox or other infection. At first I used to be scared of him because he

looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic and still had this smile that

perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or a plea for help, but so fixed! And

the white corneas and all that.

 

Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my parents who

were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it or shared their

feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back in 50s that was not done.

 

Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that winter was

coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously failing health. I

was touched! Modern children would have hugged their parents and all that, of

course that was a NO NO back then but I was touched within!

 

When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I was

surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He had the same

gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the blanket and so on.

 

He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on his face

with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was a chilly day and

he was visibly shivering@

 

I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why did he not

wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

 

Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to learn Karma

and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

 

I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided to not

change his path and practice!

 

Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! Hence my

cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too glibly and recklessly!

 

Best regards,

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and share

> their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> have made!>>>

>

> well said Rohini Da !!

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> :-)

>

> But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two beggars

and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that others can

avoid the mistakes they have made!

>

> When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular brank of cycle

named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas is carrying me, I must

be as important as Planet Earth (a little Sumerian joke!) "

>

> Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not fall off

the bike ;-)

>

> He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned a

bicycle!

>

> RR

>

> , " sureshbabuag " <sureshbabuag@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Prashant ji,

> >

> > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> >

> > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only looks

likes.....

> >

> > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or rolls roice

based on somebody's article.

> >

> > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life wrote that

it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> >

> > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and loved all

his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a bently.

> >

> > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently! what Rolls

roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It takes me to where

ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very costly to maintain too.

> >

> > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little money and

bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate in luxury.

> >

> > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when you pass by

them near the busy market corner.

> >

> > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > >

> > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially NOT

ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by some owners,

moderators with a agenda of their own

> > >

> > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and some with

vested interests against some ppl. indulge in gossip/entertainmen t than

discussion on such threads.

> > >

> > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and

other groups

> > >

> > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have

been discussed here as well

> > >

> > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO

UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > >

> > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal

appeal

> > >

> > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter

of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god

even now.

> > >

> > >

> > > prashant

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > >

> > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context.

> > >

> > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in

the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence,

don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might

have posted it?.

> > >

> > > Hope you understand

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil

> > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > >

> > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > >

> > > > You say:

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

> > > > that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

> > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

> > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

> > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > >

> > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

> > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > >

> > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

> > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > >

> > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > >

> > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > >

> > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

> > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

> > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

> > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

> > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

> > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > >

> > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

> > > >

> > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > >

> > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

> > > >

> > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

> > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

> > > >

> > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

> > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

> > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

> > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

> > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

> > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

> > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

> > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

> > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> > > > Saamkhya.

> > > >

> > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

> > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

> > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > >

> > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

> > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

> > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > >

> > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

To All Concerned,

 

SKB (Mr Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) is again displaying his old

habit of citing ancient texts falsely. Here are proofs of his deliberate

falsehoods :

 

SKB says <<< " Vinay Jha says that he has not read the

Vayu Purana " >>>

 

It is a lie, I never said so. I said Vayu Purana is not

present in my residence at present, and I am unable to visit libraries because

I am busy in developing software. It does not mean I never read Vayu Purana. As

for SKB's sincerity and honesty in carrying out a fair discourse, here are some

examples of his falsehoods :

 

SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha

(being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as

mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together

with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on

MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of

context.

 

When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove

him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana.

 

When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again

and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha,

because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu

Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ).

 

SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without

referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned

above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana

or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a

dishonest person.

 

Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members

here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures

falsely for proving his wrong ideas? Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and

called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct

citations from ancient texts.

 

 

In previous mesaage SKB said <<< " He (Kapil muni)

said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He never

said the purusha is Ishvara. " >>>

 

Even after I supplied detailed proofs to the contrary, SKB still

falsely says <<< " Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as

Ishvara cannot be proved. " >>>

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet

is Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. Next sutra make it

clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of

all actions). And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih

siddhah " , ie " thus the existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

This last sutra by Kapil Muni clearly states that the existence of Ishvara is

thus proven (although Ishvara cannot be directly perceived), but SKB

falsely says " Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be

proved " . Saamkhya, is freely available on internet (eg,

http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/samkhya.htm ).

 

 

<<< In Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about

perception and perception does not apply to yoga. " >>>

 

SKB again displays his deficiency in interpreting Sanskrit texts.

Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 apply not only to perception but to yoga too (sutra

90-91). Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses.

 

He says :

 

<<< " In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is devoted to the purusha. The purusha

which is absorbed in Prakriti separates from prakriti and becomes omnicient and

omnipotent (once again). In that sense there is a Lord (of prakriti).

Vinay Jha cannot understand this.>>>

 

It is a blatant lie by SKB. 3.55 to 3.57 clearly say

that these sutras are about Ishvara ( " ...ishvara- siddhih siddhah " ) ,

but SKB infers that it is about purusha which becomes Lord

( " Ishvara " ) after being free from Prakriti !! If this

atheistic interpretation is accepted, then there will be as many omniscient and

omnipotent Ishvaras as there are emancipated souls !! These sutras say Prakriti

is not a Work, because God does not work, but Prakriti is Paravasha, ie in

control of Ishvara who is sarvavit (omniscient) and sarvakartaa (performer of

all works because of omniscience & c), " in this way the existence of

Ishvara is proven " .

 

It is wrong to translate Ishvara as " Lord " here,

and say that individual Jeeva is Lord of everything, sarvakartaa, sarvavit,

& c.

 

Purushas are many. Ishvara is also a special Purusha. But all

these Purushas are same in quality (= Brahma-roopataa) . No Vedic philosophy

calls Prakriti a work of Ishvara. Ishvara is not the ultimate Being, which is

Brahman. After Moksha (and in Samaadhi and in Sushupti) , the individual soul

attains Brahma-roopataa (Saamkhya, 5-116. Thus, the essential quality of

purushas is

brahma-roopataa. Before attaining the Brahman, there is duality between

Prakriti and Purusha. But it ends with Brahma-roopataa : Prakriti ceases to

exist there at all : hence the ultimate goal of Saamkhya leads to advaita state

of

Brahma-roopataa. In the light of Kapil muni's own statements quoted here, it is

nonsense to say " Sankhya is Godless in its treatment ie.it does

not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic. " Saamkhya speaks of

Ishvara as the sarva-kartaam, but SKB

says there is no role for Ishvara. Saamkhya talks of Brahma-roopataa as the

ultimate goal (moksha) of a soul. It is a proof of the fact that all Purushaas

are basically same as Brahman in essence but are

manifest as different purushas. There is no dvaita between purushas and

Brahman. Ishvara is also a part of it. As for Prakriti, it is unconscious

(jada) and devoid of self-motion (it is " paravasha " , ie controlled by

Ishvara). The only role of Prakriti is to provide bhoga to 'bounded purushas'

(=jeevas) and moksha to those who have overcome desires. Thus, Prakriti exists

only for those who are bound due to desires, but

ceases to exist for those who have attained Moksha and attained Brahmaroopataa.

As

Brahman is Truth, Praktiti must be untruth, avidyaa and maayaa. But it imust

exist for providing bhoga and moksha to purushas. To regard this inanimate

Prakriti as at par with Brahman and find dvaita in Saamkhya is one trend amonh

philosophers, but to reject the Reality of Prakriti and accept only the Brahman

as well as purushas who are essentially of same stuff as the Brahman as the

Reality is another trend. The advaita

of Vedanta cannot reject the existence of Prakriti for those who have not

attained moksha. Since there

are infinite number of bounded purushas, Prakriti also is infinite in time, and

will always exist. In this limited sense, it can be said to be a sign of

dualism. But if one says

Prakriti is also accepted to be As True as

Brahman is a

misinterpretation, because pure Consciousness as the only Reality is the basis

of Saamkhya and Prakriti is described as an inferior, controlled, unconscious

and inanimate agency.

 

I said " You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six

chapters are Dvaita and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a

hypocrite or a schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. "

He defends his wrong remark about Gita by saying that first six chapters

are LOWER type of knowledge and next chapters are HIGHER knowledge !!!

SKB does not know that these first six chapters contain some of the best

gems for which Gita is famous.

 

<<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from

the higher that upanishadic level.>>>

 

Yes. But Shvetashvatara Upanishada once says that by knowing the

Deva who is attainable by means of Saamkhyayoga, a purusha is freed from all

bounds. It is not

that Saamkhya which SKB speaks of : he says Saamkhya has no role for God and is

dualist. But

Shvetashvatara Upanishada talks of something different : it saysSaamkhyayoga

is a means of attaining God. How can an

atheistic philosophy lead one to God ?? My

assertion is that Saamkhya is actually theistic, but many atheists have

misinterpreted it. Saamkhya states that Brahma-roopataa is the state of moksha,

which proves that attainment of Supreme God is the aim of Saamkhya, and same is

the statement of Shvetashvatara Upanishada. But SKB refuses to accept that

Saamkhya has any role for God, Who is the aim of Saamkhya.

 

For these differences of opinions, SKB has started using abusing

remarks, which is the real proof of his nature !! But I have supplied enough

evidences of his wrong citations and deliberately false interpretations of

ancient texts.

 

-VJ

======================= ======

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:57:21 AM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

To all concerned,

 

1)

 

Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana and that he ordered for the

same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya varsha. First he should read

the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope this is clear to him.

 

2)

I found that Vinay Jha does not know Sanskrit and he has given enough proof of

that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses. In Sutra

1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and prception does not apply to yoga.

In yoga the perception is not true external perception and secondly Yoga does

talk about an Isvara, who is separate from the Purushas. This perception does

not apply to Ishvara as Ishrara cannot be perceived. Sankhya does not bring in

Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be proved. In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is

devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates from

prakriti and becomes omnicient and omnipotent (once again). In that sense there

is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha cannot understand this and that is why he

calls Sankhya as advaita. Sankhya does not deny Ishvara. Sankhya is Godless in

its treatment

ie.it does not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic. Sankhya

speaks of Purusha and Prakriti and because of this duality Sanlkhya is

Dvaita. Even Yoga is Dvaita as it talks about purusha and Ishvara.

 

3)

In sutra 5.116 what it says that in meditation, in deep sleep and on liberation

(emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra 4.17 to 4.19 what

Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one cannot gain the knowledge

unless there is reflexion. One has to be respectful to the teacher, be dutiful

and must practice to gain the required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya leaves its

dualism like the Advaita does.

 

4)

 

Quote

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out of

context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet you talk

about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not want to make

similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial of Purusha being

Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Unquote

 

Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's book. Now he

took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and misinterpreted it. I

never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is said in the Veda and Vedanta. I

only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and that according to Sankhya the existence of

Ishvara cannot be proved. Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

 

As regards Ishvara the Yoga sutra says that " Om " is the Vachaka of Ishvara. Yet

Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the same. Rather it says

that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic scholars know that Om is

Brahman.

 

5)

 

Quote

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient scriptures

against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said spiritual knowledge

cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

Unquote

 

What is the use of misinterpreted knowledge. It should be rather called a

negative knowledge. Negative knowledge is more harmful than no knowledge.

 

6)

 

Quote

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Unquote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that upanishadic

level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

7)

 

Quote

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

Unquote

 

I am not making a mockery of Gita. Vinay Jha thinks that the highest truths can

be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to take a student step

by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a schoolboy he will tell him

about the quarks and antiquarks etc.straightway and will not start the way it is

done academically step by step through different levels. Probably Vinay Jha

thinks himself more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

 

8)

 

Quote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see whether

Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject matter of Samkhya

and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul and Brahman, but it does

not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely cited, without providing the

verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

Unquote

 

Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6 of Svetasvatara upanishad and ypu

will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter you can read other allied

verses such as the verse 5 of chapter 4 and the verses 7, 8 and 12 of chapter

5 of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

9)

 

Quote

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which will decide

who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the reference to siddhi of

Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

Unquote

 

In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members will be able

to judge who is what.

 

Sincerely

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Tue, 7/14/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

[vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Wrongly !!!

vedic astrology

Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

 

Sunil Da & To All concerned,

 

You say:

 

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

 

that. " >>>

 

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

 

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

 

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

 

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

 

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

 

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

 

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

 

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

 

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

 

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

 

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

 

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

 

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

 

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

 

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

 

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

 

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

 

ancient texts is again proven here.

 

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

 

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

 

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

 

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

 

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

 

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

 

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

 

sutras 17-19.

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

 

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

 

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

 

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

 

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

 

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

 

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanisha " >>>

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

 

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

 

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

 

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

 

of regard for truth.only.> >>

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

 

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

 

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

 

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

 

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

 

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

 

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

 

students who are now heads of departments.

 

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

 

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

 

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

 

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

 

going to use your abusive language.

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

 

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

 

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

 

out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= == ==

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

wrote:

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM

 

>

 

> Vinay,

 

>

 

> Please do not make vague statements.

 

>

 

> 1)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

 

> is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

 

him

 

> or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

 

actually

 

> not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

> philosophy.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

 

example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

 

a serious scholar will make.

 

>

 

> 2)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

 

the

 

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

 

> each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

 

> Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

 

> of later scholars.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

 

one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

 

mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

 

never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

 

Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

 

latter a special purusha.

 

>

 

> Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

 

> latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

 

> once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

 

on

 

> that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

 

>

 

> 3)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

 

Saamkhya

 

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

 

> " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

 

Soul.

 

> since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

 

> attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

 

> Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

 

> nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

 

> basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

 

> says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

 

> theistic philosophies.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

 

from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

 

as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

 

to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

 

the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

 

qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

 

>

 

> 4)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda

 

> for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

 

> Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

 

> misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

 

of

 

> principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

 

> Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

 

> means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

 

> Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

 

> without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

 

> jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

 

wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

 

and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

 

according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

 

originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

 

conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

 

about these big subjects.

 

>

 

> 5)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

 

Brahmasutra

 

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

 

this

 

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

> only One is in Many.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

 

says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

 

>

 

> 6)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Yes an ignorant person will say so:

 

>

 

> 7)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

 

his

 

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

 

the

 

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

 

Ajna

 

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

 

meaning

 

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

 

not

 

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

 

discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

 

different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

 

Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

 

Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

 

to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

 

> By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad.

 

>

 

> 8)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by

 

> means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

 

One

 

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that

 

> he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

 

> is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

 

> sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

 

> sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

 

sanyaasa,

 

> but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

 

access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

 

Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

 

maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

 

that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

 

>

 

> 9)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

 

in

 

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

 

> in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

 

not

 

> a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

 

> was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

 

you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

 

any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

 

sex so often that it borders on prversity.

 

>

 

> 10)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

 

> follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

 

not

 

> given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

 

samskaara.

 

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

 

> who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

 

Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

 

about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

 

taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

 

then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

 

latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

 

took his decision.

 

>

 

> 11)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

 

> is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

 

brahmacharya

 

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

 

> sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

 

with

 

> the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

 

> for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

 

not

 

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

 

> never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

 

still

 

> say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is

 

> totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

 

> according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

 

> attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

 

has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

 

speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and

 

lack of regard for truth.only.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> To All,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

 

in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

 

anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

 

his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

philosophy.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

 

at that. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

" Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

 

singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

 

but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

 

a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

 

scholars.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

 

" Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

 

Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

 

Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

 

Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

 

Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

 

the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

 

Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

 

says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

 

that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

 

much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

 

be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

 

philosophies.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

 

Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

 

that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

 

to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

 

basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

 

Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

 

and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

 

(spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

 

The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

 

tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

 

proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

 

which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

 

is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

only One is in Many.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

 

srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

 

inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

 

(ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

 

of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

 

be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

 

sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

 

can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

 

unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

 

are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

 

one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

 

downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

 

sanyashi " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

 

" >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

(libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

 

many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

 

his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

 

brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

 

therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

 

Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

 

Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

 

But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

 

cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

 

egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

 

the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

 

so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

 

libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

 

" Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

 

me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

 

marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

 

said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

 

that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

> grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

 

to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

 

watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ===== =====

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear friends,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

 

Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

 

that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

 

free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

 

attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

 

the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

 

gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

 

leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

 

purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

 

did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

 

not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

 

Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

 

of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

 

Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

 

The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

 

Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

 

Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

 

to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

 

a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

 

an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

 

sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

 

sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

 

claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

 

gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

 

ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

 

Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

 

of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

 

>

 

> and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

 

the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sincerely,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

 

declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

 

thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

 

discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

 

should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

 

is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

 

synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

 

Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

 

culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

 

summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

 

iceberg.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

 

not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

 

Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

 

purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

 

everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

 

now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

 

is relative to the observer " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

 

is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

 

philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

 

philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

 

should learn it properly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

 

of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

 

as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

 

chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

 

Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

 

astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ========= ========= = ===

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Jhaaji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

 

about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

 

prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

 

says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

 

clarify this point.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

 

everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

 

interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

 

philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

 

religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

 

religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

 

philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

 

philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

 

terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

 

qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

 

terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

 

world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

 

he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

 

HOME,.where is this paralok?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

 

generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

 

science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

 

which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

 

especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

 

think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

 

on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

 

agree with me with the details.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

 

dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

 

astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

 

share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

 

sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinay,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Good write-up.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > A few clarifications please.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 1)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

 

not

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

 

term

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 2)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

 

cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Are these your own computations?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 3)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

 

observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

 

the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

 

was known to the modern science

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Best wishes,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Malla Ji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

 

or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

 

and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

 

of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

 

which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

 

and Matter and all other material properties.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

 

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

 

panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

 

of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

 

sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

 

Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

 

it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

 

and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

 

Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

 

by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

 

subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

 

Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

 

Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

 

of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

 

bhootas.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

 

scientific terms?>>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

 

which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

 

material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

 

constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

 

plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

 

24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

 

culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

 

jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

 

dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

 

universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

 

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

 

" ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

 

Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

 

Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

 

false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

 

Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

 

Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

 

rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

 

13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

 

are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

 

and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

 

original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

 

tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

 

intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

 

and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

 

> 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

 

even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

 

Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

 

Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

 

Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

 

quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

 

by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

 

sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

 

coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

 

always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

 

coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

 

colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

 

organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

 

Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

 

categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > supercomputer

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

 

particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

 

intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

 

hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

 

quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

 

socalled intelligence.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

 

modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

 

operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

 

3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

 

individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

 

after one !!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ============ ========= ===== ==

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

 

quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

 

the the witnessed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

 

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

 

witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

 

observed)?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

 

terms?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ..

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

 

.....> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

 

Excellent!!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Best regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

 

Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

 

Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

 

Material World.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

 

Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

 

its Creator.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Dear sirs,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

 

discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

 

Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

 

universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

 

achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

 

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > Hmmm...!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

 

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

 

is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

 

third side of this strange coin.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

 

a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

 

Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

 

the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

 

a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

 

space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

 

with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

 

mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

 

a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

 

expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

 

the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

 

which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

 

overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

 

a new idea in science, and is

 

> known as Oscillating

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Universe,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

 

digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

 

the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

 

stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

 

speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

 

everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

 

eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

 

speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

 

their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

 

the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

 

to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > JR

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Well, charity begins at home or so they say Jha ji!

My apologies for butting in, Rohini-jee, the message was addressed to

you :-)

And Jha ji, how about issuing a weekly, or at least a fortnightly

BULLETin on the outcome of this historic marathon between you and SKB.

That could be really *STRIKING*, I guess!

Apus

 

 

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

wrote:

>

> Rohini Da,

>

> <<< I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! >>>

>

> We can change only ourselves, not others. Even God can change only

those who are ready for it. Was it possible to change a Ravana or a

Duryodhana ?

>

> The problem is we are always trying to find the Ravana in others, not

within ourselves. The Collective Unconscious of Jung is the triguni

Prakriti which is Jada/Jara (Unconscious). It is present in all of us.

It must be got rid of ; that is moksha.

>

> -VJ

> ==================================== ===

>

>

> ________________________________

> Rohiniranjan rohini_ranjan

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:24:43 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Vinay-Ji,

>

> Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are

blessed to *give*, in a sense!

>

> When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was

blind and looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas

probably secondary to small pox or other infection. At first I used to

be scared of him because he looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic

and still had this smile that perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or

a plea for help, but so fixed! And the white corneas and all that.

>

> Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my

parents who were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it

or shared their feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back

in 50s that was not done.

>

> Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that

winter was coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously

failing health. I was touched! Modern children would have hugged their

parents and all that, of course that was a NO NO back then but I was

touched within!

>

> When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I

was surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He

had the same gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the

blanket and so on.

>

> He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on

his face with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was

a chilly day and he was visibly shivering@

>

> I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why

did he not wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

>

> Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to

learn Karma and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

>

> I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided

to not change his path and practice!

>

> Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path

nor ever tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine

decree! Hence my cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too

glibly and recklessly!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Rohiniranjan

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> >

> > <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and

share

> > their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> > have made!>>>

> >

> > well said Rohini Da !!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

> >

> > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two

beggars and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that

others can avoid the mistakes they have made!

> >

> > When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular

brank of cycle named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas

is carrying me, I must be as important as Planet Earth (a little

Sumerian joke!) "

> >

> > Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not

fall off the bike ;-)

> >

> > He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned

a bicycle!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , " sureshbabuag "

<sureshbabuag@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Prashant ji,

> > >

> > > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> > >

> > > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only

looks likes.....

> > >

> > > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or

rolls roice based on somebody's article.

> > >

> > > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life

wrote that it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> > >

> > > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and

loved all his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a

bently.

> > >

> > > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently!

what Rolls roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It

takes me to where ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very

costly to maintain too.

> > >

> > > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little

money and bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate

in luxury.

> > >

> > > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when

you pass by them near the busy market corner.

> > >

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Prashant Kumar G B

<gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > > >

> > > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially

NOT ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by

some owners, moderators with a agenda of their own

> > > >

> > > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and

some with vested interests against some ppl. indulge in

gossip/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads.

> > > >

> > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics

here and other groups

> > > >

> > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts

others have been discussed here as well

> > > >

> > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that

ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > > >

> > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has

universal appeal

> > > >

> > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not

a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls

who can see god even now.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > prashant

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly

!!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > > >

> > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune &

context.

> > > >

> > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such

message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in

any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the

same way or in the forum he might have posted it?.

> > > >

> > > > Hope you understand

> > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > > >

> > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr

Sunil

> > > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > > >

> > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > > >

> > > > > You say:

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then

left it at

> > > > > that. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the

original

> > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha

pramaana " , and

> > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses

(ie,

> > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context.

Because of

> > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and

sutras

> > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in

the case

> > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses

which

> > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and

sutra

> > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the

exception in

> > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal

pratyaksha

> > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove

it :

> > > > >

> > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara),

yet is

> > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient

(sarva-vit) and

> > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > > >

> > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie

" thus the

> > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting

from

> > > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need

of

> > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > > >

> > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti

and

> > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states,

hence

> > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura

with

> > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and

Virochana failed

> > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so

in ch-4,

> > > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts,

made out

> > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work

and yet

> > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila.

" I do not

> > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for

your denial

> > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV,

which is

> > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it

amply clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study

ancient

> > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni

said

> > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long

Brahmacharya.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya

you are

> > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya

even once. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a

liar ???

> > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations

deliberately ?

> > > > >

> > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters

are Dvaita

> > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a

hypocrite or a

> > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in

Svetasvatara has

> > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara

Upanishad speaks

> > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance

and lack

> > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > > >

> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone

can see

> > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The

subject

> > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk

about soul

> > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can

be falsely

> > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary

references to

> > > > > Saamkhya.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow

who has a

> > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who

has no

> > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even

among my

> > > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > > >

> > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks

against me just

> > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting

ancient

> > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking

recourse to

> > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I

am not

> > > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > > >

> > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada,

which

> > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already

shown the

> > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Friends ,

 

Samkhya is supposed to be the oldest school of thought . Dvait and Advait comes

under the mimansa school of thought which came much later . How can you take a

classification which came into existence much later and apply it to a much

earlier thought ?

 

 

Regards ,

 

Anand

 

A. K. Ghurye

-

Sunil Bhattacharjya

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:57 AM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly

!!!

 

 

 

 

 

To all concerned,

 

1)

 

Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana and that he ordered for

the same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya varsha. First he should

read the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope this is clear to him.

 

2)

I found that Vinay Jha does not know Sanskrit and he has given enough proof of

that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses. In Sutra

1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and prception does not apply to yoga.

In yoga the perception is not true external perception and secondly Yoga does

talk about an Isvara, who is separate from the Purushas. This perception does

not apply to Ishvara as Ishrara cannot be perceived. Sankhya does not bring in

Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be proved. In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is

devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates

from prakriti and becomes omnicient and omnipotent (once again). In that sense

there is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha cannot understand this and that is why

he calls Sankhya as advaita. Sankhya does not deny Ishvara. Sankhya is Godless

in its treatment

ie.it does not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic. Sankhya

speaks of Purusha and Prakriti and because of this duality Sanlkhya is

Dvaita. Even Yoga is Dvaita as it talks about purusha and Ishvara.

 

3)

In sutra 5.116 what it says that in meditation, in deep sleep and on

liberation (emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra 4.17 to

4.19 what Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one cannot gain the

knowledge unless there is reflexion. One has to be respectful to the teacher, be

dutiful and must practice to gain the required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya

leaves its dualism like the Advaita does.

 

4)

 

Quote

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out of

context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet you talk

about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not want to make

similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial of Purusha being

Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Unquote

 

Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's book. Now he

took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and misinterpreted it. I

never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is said in the Veda and Vedanta. I

only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and that according to Sankhya the existence of

Ishvara cannot be proved. Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

 

As regards Ishvara the Yoga sutra says that " Om " is the Vachaka of Ishvara.

Yet Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the same. Rather it

says that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic scholars know that Om is

Brahman.

 

5)

 

Quote

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient scriptures

against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said spiritual knowledge

cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

Unquote

 

What is the use of misinterpreted knowledge. It should be rather called a

negative knowledge. Negative knowledge is more harmful than no knowledge.

 

6)

 

Quote

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Unquote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that upanishadic

level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

7)

 

Quote

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

Unquote

 

I am not making a mockery of Gita. Vinay Jha thinks that the highest truths

can be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to take a student

step by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a schoolboy he will tell

him about the quarks and antiquarks etc.straightway and will not start the way

it is done academically step by step through different levels. Probably Vinay

Jha thinks himself more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

 

8)

 

Quote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see whether

Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject matter of Samkhya

and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul and Brahman, but it does

not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely cited, without providing the

verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

Unquote

 

Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6 of Svetasvatara upanishad and

ypu will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter you can read other allied

verses such as the verse 5 of chapter 4 and the verses 7, 8 and 12 of chapter

5 of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

9)

 

Quote

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which will

decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the reference to

siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false out-of-context

misinterpretation.

 

Unquote

 

In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members will be

able to judge who is what.

 

Sincerely

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Tue, 7/14/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

[vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya

Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

vedic astrology

Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

 

Sunil Da & To All concerned,

 

You say:

 

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

 

that. " >>>

 

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

 

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

 

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

 

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

 

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

 

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

 

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

 

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

 

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

 

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

 

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

 

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

 

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

 

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

 

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

 

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

 

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

 

ancient texts is again proven here.

 

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

 

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

 

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

 

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

 

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

 

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

 

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

 

sutras 17-19.

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

 

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

 

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

 

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

 

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

 

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

 

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanisha " >>>

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

 

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

 

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

 

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

 

of regard for truth.only.> >>

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

 

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

 

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

 

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

 

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

 

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

 

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

 

students who are now heads of departments.

 

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

 

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

 

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

 

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

 

going to use your abusive language.

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

 

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

 

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

 

out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= == ==

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

wrote:

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM

 

>

 

> Vinay,

 

>

 

> Please do not make vague statements.

 

>

 

> 1)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

 

> is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

 

him

 

> or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

 

actually

 

> not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

> philosophy.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

 

example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

 

a serious scholar will make.

 

>

 

> 2)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

 

the

 

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

 

> each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

 

> Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

 

> of later scholars.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

 

one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

 

mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

 

never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

 

Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

 

latter a special purusha.

 

>

 

> Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

 

> latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

 

> once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

 

on

 

> that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

 

>

 

> 3)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

 

Saamkhya

 

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

 

> " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

 

Soul.

 

> since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

 

> attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

 

> Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

 

> nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

 

> basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

 

> says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

 

> theistic philosophies.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

 

from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

 

as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

 

to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

 

the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

 

qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

 

>

 

> 4)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda

 

> for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

 

> Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

 

> misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

 

of

 

> principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

 

> Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

 

> means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

 

> Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

 

> without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

 

> jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

 

wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

 

and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

 

according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

 

originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

 

conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

 

about these big subjects.

 

>

 

> 5)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

 

Brahmasutra

 

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

 

this

 

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

> only One is in Many.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

 

says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

 

>

 

> 6)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Yes an ignorant person will say so:

 

>

 

> 7)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

 

his

 

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

 

the

 

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

 

Ajna

 

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

 

meaning

 

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

 

not

 

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

 

discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

 

different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

 

Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

 

Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

 

to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

 

> By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad.

 

>

 

> 8)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by

 

> means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

 

One

 

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that

 

> he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

 

> is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

 

> sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

 

> sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

 

sanyaasa,

 

> but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

 

access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

 

Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

 

maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

 

that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

 

>

 

> 9)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

 

in

 

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

 

> in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

 

not

 

> a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

 

> was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

 

you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

 

any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

 

sex so often that it borders on prversity.

 

>

 

> 10)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

 

> follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

 

not

 

> given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

 

samskaara.

 

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

 

> who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

 

Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

 

about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

 

taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

 

then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

 

latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

 

took his decision.

 

>

 

> 11)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

 

> is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

 

brahmacharya

 

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

 

> sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

 

with

 

> the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

 

> for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

 

not

 

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

 

> never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

 

still

 

> say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is

 

> totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

 

> according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

 

> attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

 

has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

 

speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and

 

lack of regard for truth.only.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> To All,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

 

in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

 

anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

 

his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

philosophy.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

 

at that. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

" Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

 

singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

 

but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

 

a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

 

scholars.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

 

" Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

 

Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

 

Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

 

Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

 

Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

 

the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

 

Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

 

says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

 

that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

 

much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

 

be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

 

philosophies.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

 

Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

 

that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

 

to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

 

basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

 

Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

 

and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

 

(spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

 

The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

 

tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

 

proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

 

which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

 

is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

only One is in Many.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

 

srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

 

inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

 

(ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

 

of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

 

be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

 

sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

 

can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

 

unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

 

are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

 

one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

 

downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

 

sanyashi " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

 

" >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

(libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

 

many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

 

his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

 

brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

 

therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

 

Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

 

Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

 

But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

 

cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

 

egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

 

the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

 

so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

 

libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

 

" Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

 

me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

 

marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

 

said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

 

that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

> grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

 

to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

 

watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ===== =====

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear friends,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

 

Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

 

that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

 

free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

 

attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

 

the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

 

gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

 

leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

 

purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

 

did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

 

not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

 

Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

 

of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

 

Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

 

The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

 

Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

 

Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

 

to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

 

a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

 

an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

 

sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

 

sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

 

claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

 

gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

 

ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

 

Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

 

of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

 

>

 

> and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

 

the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sincerely,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

 

declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

 

thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

 

discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

 

should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

 

is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

 

synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

 

Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

 

culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

 

summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

 

iceberg.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

 

not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

 

Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

 

purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

 

everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

 

now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

 

is relative to the observer " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

 

is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

 

philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

 

philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

 

should learn it properly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

 

of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

 

as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

 

chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

 

Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

 

astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ========= ========= = ===

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Jhaaji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

 

about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

 

prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

 

says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

 

clarify this point.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

 

everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

 

interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

 

philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

 

religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

 

religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

 

philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

 

philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

 

terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

 

qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

 

terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

 

world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

 

he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

 

HOME,.where is this paralok?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

 

generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

 

science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

 

which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

 

especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

 

think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

 

on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

 

agree with me with the details.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

 

dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

 

astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

 

share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

 

sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinay,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Good write-up.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > A few clarifications please.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 1)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

 

not

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

 

term

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 2)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

 

cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Are these your own computations?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 3)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

 

observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

 

the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

 

was known to the modern science

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Best wishes,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Malla Ji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

 

or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

 

and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

 

of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

 

which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

 

and Matter and all other material properties.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

 

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

 

panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

 

of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

 

sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

 

Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

 

it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

 

and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

 

Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

 

by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

 

subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

 

Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

 

Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

 

of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

 

bhootas.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

 

scientific terms?>>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

 

which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

 

material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

 

constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

 

plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

 

24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

 

culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

 

jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

 

dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

 

universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

 

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

 

" ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

 

Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

 

Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

 

false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

 

Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

 

Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

 

rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

 

13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

 

are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

 

and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

 

original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

 

tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

 

intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

 

and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

 

> 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

 

even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

 

Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

 

Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

 

Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

 

quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

 

by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

 

sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

 

coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

 

always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

 

coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

 

colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

 

organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

 

Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

 

categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > supercomputer

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

 

particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

 

intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

 

hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

 

quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

 

socalled intelligence.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

 

modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

 

operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

 

3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

 

individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

 

after one !!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ============ ========= ===== ==

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

 

quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

 

the the witnessed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

 

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

 

witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

 

observed)?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

 

terms?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ..

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

 

...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

 

Excellent!!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Best regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

 

Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

 

Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

 

Material World.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

 

Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

 

its Creator.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Dear sirs,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

 

discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

 

Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

 

universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

 

achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

 

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > Hmmm...!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

 

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

 

is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

 

third side of this strange coin.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

 

a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

 

Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

 

the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

 

a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

 

space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

 

with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

 

mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

 

a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

 

expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

 

the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

 

which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

 

overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

 

a new idea in science, and is

 

> known as Oscillating

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Universe,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

 

digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

 

the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

 

stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

 

speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

 

everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

 

eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

 

speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

 

their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

 

the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

 

to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > JR

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Member

 

pl rest the topic in peace now...

not part of our group so lets avoid any ref in further, SKB has not become part

of this group so it is not right to say more than already said.

which went thru in unmoderated posts. pl observe self moderation.

 

prashant

 

 

 

 

________________________________

apusmagna <apusmagna

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:18:56 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Well, charity begins at home or so they say Jha ji!

My apologies for butting in, Rohini-jee, the message was addressed to

you :-)

And Jha ji, how about issuing a weekly, or at least a fortnightly

BULLETin on the outcome of this historic marathon between you and SKB.

That could be really *STRIKING*, I guess!

Apus

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

>

> Rohini Da,

>

> <<< I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! >>>

>

> We can change only ourselves, not others. Even God can change only

those who are ready for it. Was it possible to change a Ravana or a

Duryodhana ?

>

> The problem is we are always trying to find the Ravana in others, not

within ourselves. The Collective Unconscious of Jung is the triguni

Prakriti which is Jada/Jara (Unconscious) . It is present in all of us.

It must be got rid of ; that is moksha.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= ========= ====== ===

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Rohiniranjan rohini_ranjan@ ...

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:24:43 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Vinay-Ji,

>

> Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are

blessed to *give*, in a sense!

>

> When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was

blind and looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas

probably secondary to small pox or other infection. At first I used to

be scared of him because he looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic

and still had this smile that perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or

a plea for help, but so fixed! And the white corneas and all that.

>

> Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my

parents who were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it

or shared their feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back

in 50s that was not done.

>

> Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that

winter was coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously

failing health. I was touched! Modern children would have hugged their

parents and all that, of course that was a NO NO back then but I was

touched within!

>

> When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I

was surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He

had the same gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the

blanket and so on.

>

> He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on

his face with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was

a chilly day and he was visibly shivering@

>

> I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why

did he not wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

>

> Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to

learn Karma and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

>

> I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided

to not change his path and practice!

>

> Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path

nor ever tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine

decree! Hence my cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too

glibly and recklessly!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Rohiniranjan

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> >

> > <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and

share

> > their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> > have made!>>>

> >

> > well said Rohini Da !!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

> >

> > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two

beggars and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that

others can avoid the mistakes they have made!

> >

> > When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular

brank of cycle named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas

is carrying me, I must be as important as Planet Earth (a little

Sumerian joke!) "

> >

> > Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not

fall off the bike ;-)

> >

> > He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned

a bicycle!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , " sureshbabuag "

<sureshbabuag@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Prashant ji,

> > >

> > > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> > >

> > > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only

looks likes.....

> > >

> > > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or

rolls roice based on somebody's article.

> > >

> > > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life

wrote that it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> > >

> > > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and

loved all his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a

bently.

> > >

> > > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently!

what Rolls roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It

takes me to where ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very

costly to maintain too.

> > >

> > > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little

money and bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate

in luxury.

> > >

> > > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when

you pass by them near the busy market corner.

> > >

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Prashant Kumar G B

<gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > > >

> > > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially

NOT ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by

some owners, moderators with a agenda of their own

> > > >

> > > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and

some with vested interests against some ppl. indulge in

gossip/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads.

> > > >

> > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics

here and other groups

> > > >

> > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts

others have been discussed here as well

> > > >

> > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that

ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > > >

> > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has

universal appeal

> > > >

> > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not

a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls

who can see god even now.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > prashant

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly

!!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > > >

> > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune &

context.

> > > >

> > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such

message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in

any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the

same way or in the forum he might have posted it?.

> > > >

> > > > Hope you understand

> > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > > >

> > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr

Sunil

> > > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > > >

> > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > > >

> > > > > You say:

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then

left it at

> > > > > that. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the

original

> > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha

pramaana " , and

> > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses

(ie,

> > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context.

Because of

> > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and

sutras

> > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in

the case

> > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses

which

> > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and

sutra

> > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the

exception in

> > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal

pratyaksha

> > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove

it :

> > > > >

> > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara),

yet is

> > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient

(sarva-vit) and

> > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > > >

> > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie

" thus the

> > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting

from

> > > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need

of

> > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > > >

> > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti

and

> > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states,

hence

> > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura

with

> > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and

Virochana failed

> > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so

in ch-4,

> > > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts,

made out

> > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work

and yet

> > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila.

" I do not

> > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for

your denial

> > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV,

which is

> > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it

amply clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study

ancient

> > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni

said

> > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long

Brahmacharya.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya

you are

> > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya

even once. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a

liar ???

> > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations

deliberately ?

> > > > >

> > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters

are Dvaita

> > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a

hypocrite or a

> > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in

Svetasvatara has

> > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara

Upanishad speaks

> > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance

and lack

> > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > > >

> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone

can see

> > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The

subject

> > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk

about soul

> > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can

be falsely

> > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary

references to

> > > > > Saamkhya.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow

who has a

> > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who

has no

> > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even

among my

> > > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > > >

> > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks

against me just

> > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting

ancient

> > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking

recourse to

> > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I

am not

> > > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > > >

> > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada,

which

> > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already

shown the

> > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Anand ji,

 

Read my answer to SKB (Sunil Ji's false charges).

 

Rgveda says : " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . It is outspoken advaitism.

Saamkhya is eulogised as a means to attain God in upanishadas which are called

Vedanta because the first upanishada (Ishopanishada) is the last chapter of

Yajurveda. Hence, Saamkhya cannot be called atheistic, as some later day

atheists want to prove. Following is a para of my message to another member :

 

<<<

Prakriti will remain here always, because there is no end of bounded purushas

(jeevas). But Prakriti ceases to exist completely for an emancipated soul. Once

you digest this simple truth, you will find that all discussions about dvaita

and advaita are child-talk. Prakriti exists and does not exist : it exists for

the ignorant but does not exist for the mukta. If something exists in ignorance

and vanishes after knowledge, then it must be maayaa and untruth : this leads us

to advaita. But for unliberated souls, Prakriti is a harsh reality whose

existence cannot be denied. Prakriti is a great (pra) kriti, but it is merely a

kriti of the Creator. The Creator is not Ishvara. Ishvara is that form of

Brahman who has a " desire " of Kalyaana of jeevas (ish means desire, vara means

varana). Brahman has no desire. Hence, Brahman is different from Ishvara. So is

Brahmaa, who is the Creator of Kalpa through his Kalpanaa.

>>>

 

-VJ

======================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Anand <anand.ghurye

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:55:16 PM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Friends ,

 

Samkhya is supposed to be the oldest school of thought . Dvait and Advait comes

under the mimansa school of thought which came much later . How can you take a

classification which came into existence much later and apply it to a much

earlier thought ?

 

Regards ,

 

Anand

 

A. K. Ghurye

-

Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:57 AM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

To all concerned,

 

1)

 

Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana and that he ordered for the

same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya varsha. First he should read

the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope this is clear to him.

 

2)

I found that Vinay Jha does not know Sanskrit and he has given enough proof of

that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses. In Sutra

1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and prception does not apply to yoga.

In yoga the perception is not true external perception and secondly Yoga does

talk about an Isvara, who is separate from the Purushas. This perception does

not apply to Ishvara as Ishrara cannot be perceived. Sankhya does not bring in

Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be proved. In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is

devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates from

prakriti and becomes omnicient and omnipotent (once again). In that sense there

is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha cannot understand this and that is why he

calls Sankhya as advaita. Sankhya does not deny Ishvara. Sankhya is Godless in

its treatment

ie.it does not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic. Sankhya

speaks of Purusha and Prakriti and because of this duality Sanlkhya is

Dvaita. Even Yoga is Dvaita as it talks about purusha and Ishvara.

 

3)

In sutra 5.116 what it says that in meditation, in deep sleep and on liberation

(emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra 4.17 to 4.19 what

Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one cannot gain the knowledge

unless there is reflexion. One has to be respectful to the teacher, be dutiful

and must practice to gain the required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya leaves its

dualism like the Advaita does.

 

4)

 

Quote

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out of

context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet you talk

about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not want to make

similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial of Purusha being

Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Unquote

 

Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's book. Now he

took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and misinterpreted it. I

never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is said in the Veda and Vedanta. I

only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and that according to Sankhya the existence of

Ishvara cannot be proved. Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

 

As regards Ishvara the Yoga sutra says that " Om " is the Vachaka of Ishvara. Yet

Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the same. Rather it says

that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic scholars know that Om is

Brahman.

 

5)

 

Quote

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient scriptures

against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said spiritual knowledge

cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

Unquote

 

What is the use of misinterpreted knowledge. It should be rather called a

negative knowledge. Negative knowledge is more harmful than no knowledge.

 

6)

 

Quote

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Unquote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that upanishadic

level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

7)

 

Quote

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

Unquote

 

I am not making a mockery of Gita. Vinay Jha thinks that the highest truths can

be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to take a student step

by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a schoolboy he will tell him

about the quarks and antiquarks etc.straightway and will not start the way it is

done academically step by step through different levels. Probably Vinay Jha

thinks himself more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

 

8)

 

Quote

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see whether

Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject matter of Samkhya

and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul and Brahman, but it does

not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely cited, without providing the

verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

Unquote

 

Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6 of Svetasvatara upanishad and ypu

will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter you can read other allied

verses such as the verse 5 of chapter 4 and the verses 7, 8 and 12 of chapter

5 of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

9)

 

Quote

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which will decide

who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the reference to siddhi of

Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

Unquote

 

In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members will be able

to judge who is what.

 

Sincerely

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Tue, 7/14/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

[vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Wrongly !!!

vedic astrology

Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

 

Sunil Da & To All concerned,

 

You say:

 

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

 

that. " >>>

 

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

 

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

 

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

 

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

 

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

 

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

 

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

 

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

 

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

 

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

 

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

 

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

 

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

 

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

 

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

 

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

 

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

 

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

 

ancient texts is again proven here.

 

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

 

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

 

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

 

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

 

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

 

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

 

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

 

sutras 17-19.

 

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

 

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

 

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

 

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

 

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

 

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

 

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

 

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

 

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

 

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

 

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanisha " >>>

 

I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. "

 

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

 

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

 

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

 

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

 

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

 

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

 

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

 

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

 

of regard for truth.only.> >>

 

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

 

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

 

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

 

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

 

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

 

Saamkhya.

 

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

 

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

 

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

 

students who are now heads of departments.

 

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

 

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

 

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

 

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

 

going to use your abusive language.

 

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

 

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

 

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

 

out-of-context misinterpretation.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= == ==

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

wrote:

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM

 

>

 

> Vinay,

 

>

 

> Please do not make vague statements.

 

>

 

> 1)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

 

> is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

 

him

 

> or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

 

actually

 

> not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

> philosophy.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

 

example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

 

a serious scholar will make.

 

>

 

> 2)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

 

the

 

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

 

> each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

 

> Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

 

> of later scholars.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

 

one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

 

mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

 

never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

 

Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

 

latter a special purusha.

 

>

 

> Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

 

> latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

 

> once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

 

on

 

> that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

 

>

 

> 3)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

 

Saamkhya

 

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

 

> " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

 

Soul.

 

> since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

 

> attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

 

> Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

 

> nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

 

> basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

 

> says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

 

> theistic philosophies.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

 

from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

 

as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

 

to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

 

the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

 

qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

 

>

 

> 4)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda

 

> for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

 

> Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

 

> misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

 

of

 

> principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

 

> Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

 

> means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

 

> Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

 

> without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

 

> jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

 

wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

 

and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

 

according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

 

originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

 

conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

 

about these big subjects.

 

>

 

> 5)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

 

Brahmasutra

 

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

 

this

 

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

> only One is in Many.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

 

says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

 

>

 

> 6)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Yes an ignorant person will say so:

 

>

 

> 7)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

 

his

 

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

 

the

 

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

 

Ajna

 

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

 

meaning

 

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

 

not

 

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

 

discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

 

different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

 

Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

 

Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

 

to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

 

> By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

 

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad.

 

>

 

> 8)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by

 

> means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

 

One

 

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that

 

> he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

 

> is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

 

> sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

 

> sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

 

sanyaasa,

 

> but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

 

access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

 

Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

 

maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

 

that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

 

>

 

> 9)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

 

in

 

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

 

> in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

 

not

 

> a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

 

> was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

 

you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

 

any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

 

sex so often that it borders on prversity.

 

>

 

> 10)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

 

> follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

 

not

 

> given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

 

samskaara.

 

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

 

> who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

 

Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

 

about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

 

taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

 

then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

 

latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

 

took his decision.

 

>

 

> 11)

 

>

 

> Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

 

> is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

 

brahmacharya

 

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

 

> sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

 

with

 

> the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

 

> for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

 

not

 

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

 

> never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

 

still

 

> say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is

 

> totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

 

> according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

 

> attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

> Unquote

 

>

 

> One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

 

has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

 

speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and

 

lack of regard for truth.only.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> To All,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

 

state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

 

decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

 

in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

 

anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

 

his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

 

philosophy.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

 

at that. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

 

" Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

 

Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

 

it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

 

singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

 

mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

 

but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

 

a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

 

scholars.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

 

" Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

 

Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

 

Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

 

pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

 

yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

 

Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

 

Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

 

Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

 

the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

 

Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

 

says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

 

that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

 

much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

 

be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

 

philosophies.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

 

Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

 

that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

 

Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

 

to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

 

between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

 

basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

 

Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

 

and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

 

(spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

 

The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

 

tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

 

proper charater and mindset.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

 

individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

 

question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

 

Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

 

which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

 

can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

 

as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

 

Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

 

buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

 

is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

 

of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

 

Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

 

separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

 

only One is in Many.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

 

following statements :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

 

believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

 

better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

 

srmon at Kuruksetra !!

 

>

 

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

 

is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

 

inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

 

citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

 

(ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

 

liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

 

of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

 

it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

 

be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

 

sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

 

by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

 

initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

 

can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

 

Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

 

that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

 

Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

 

to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

 

unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

 

are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

 

one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

 

downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

 

sanyashi " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

 

" >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

 

(libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

 

many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

 

his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

 

brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

 

therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

 

ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

 

has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

 

year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

 

distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

 

differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

 

that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

 

Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

 

Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 2 : 39

 

>

 

> 3 : 3

 

>

 

> 5 : 3, 4

 

>

 

> 13 : 24

 

>

 

> 18 : 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Chapter Verse

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

 

>

 

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

 

>

 

> 9 : 28

 

>

 

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

 

not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

 

before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

 

grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

 

But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

 

brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

 

because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

 

cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

 

egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

 

emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

 

Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

 

the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

 

so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

 

parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

 

libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

 

" Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

 

me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

 

marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

 

concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

 

said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

 

that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

 

> grihasthas.

 

>

 

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

 

is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

 

Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

 

when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

 

second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

 

impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

 

to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

 

watching TV shows of five star gurus.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ===== =====

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear friends,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

 

Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

 

that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

 

free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

 

attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

 

the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

 

gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

 

leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

 

purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

 

did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

 

not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

 

Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

 

of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

 

Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

 

The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

 

Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

 

Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

 

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

 

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

 

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

 

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

 

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

 

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

 

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

 

to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

 

a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

 

an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

 

sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

 

sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

 

claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

 

gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

 

ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

 

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

 

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

 

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

 

Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

 

of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

 

>

 

> and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

 

the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sincerely,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

 

declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

 

thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

 

discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

 

should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

 

is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

 

synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

 

Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

 

culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

 

summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

 

iceberg.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

 

not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

 

Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

 

purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

 

everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

 

now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

 

is relative to the observer " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

 

is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

 

philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

 

philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

 

should learn it properly.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

 

of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

 

as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

 

chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

 

Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

 

astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ============ ========= ========= ========= = ===

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Jhaaji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

 

about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

 

dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

 

prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

 

says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

 

clarify this point.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

 

everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

 

interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

 

philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

 

religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

 

religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

 

philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

 

philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

 

terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

 

qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

 

terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

 

world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

 

he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

 

HOME,.where is this paralok?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

 

generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

 

science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

 

which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

 

especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

 

think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

 

on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

 

agree with me with the details.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

 

dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

 

astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

 

share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

 

sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinay,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Good write-up.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > A few clarifications please.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 1)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

 

not

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

 

term

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 2)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Quote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

 

cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Unquote

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Are these your own computations?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > 3)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

 

observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

 

the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

 

was known to the modern science

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Best wishes,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > SKB

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Malla Ji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

 

or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

 

and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

 

of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

 

which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

 

and Matter and all other material properties.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

 

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

 

panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

 

of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

 

sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

 

Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

 

it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

 

and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

 

Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

 

by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

 

subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

 

Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

 

Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

 

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

 

of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

 

bhootas.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

 

scientific terms?>>>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

 

which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

 

material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

 

constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

 

plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

 

24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

 

culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

 

jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

 

dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

 

universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

 

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

 

" ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

 

Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

 

Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

 

false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

 

Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

 

Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

 

rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

 

13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

 

are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

 

and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

 

original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

 

tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

 

intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

 

and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

 

> 13

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

 

even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

 

estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

 

Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

 

Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

 

Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

 

quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

 

by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

 

sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

 

coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

 

always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

 

coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

 

colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

 

organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

 

Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

 

categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > supercomputer

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

 

particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

 

intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

 

hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

 

quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

 

socalled intelligence.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

 

modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

 

operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

 

3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

 

individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

 

after one !!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ============ ========= ===== ==

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

 

nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

 

quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

 

the the witnessed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

 

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

 

witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

 

observed)?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

 

terms?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > ..

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

 

....> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

 

Excellent!!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Best regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

 

Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

 

Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

 

Material World.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

 

Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

 

its Creator.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

 

the nakshatras

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Dear sirs,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

 

discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

 

Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

 

universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

 

achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Regards,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Hari Malla

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

 

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > Hmmm...!

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

 

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

 

is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

 

third side of this strange coin.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

 

a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

 

Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

 

the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

 

a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

 

space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

 

with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

 

mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

 

a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

 

expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

 

the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

 

which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

 

overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

 

a new idea in science, and is

 

> known as Oscillating

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > Universe,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

 

digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

 

the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

 

stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

 

speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

 

everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

 

eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

 

speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

 

their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

 

the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

 

to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > > JR

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Thanks Prashant Ji, I chose to neglect the remarks of apus- " magna " , because I am

not a magna but a small fry.

 

-VJ

 

________________________________

Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:31:26 PM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Member

 

pl rest the topic in peace now...

not part of our group so lets avoid any ref in further, SKB has not become part

of this group so it is not right to say more than already said.

which went thru in unmoderated posts. pl observe self moderation.

 

prashant

 

____________ _________ _________ __

apusmagna <apusmagna (AT) (DOT) in>

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:18:56 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

 

Well, charity begins at home or so they say Jha ji!

My apologies for butting in, Rohini-jee, the message was addressed to

you :-)

And Jha ji, how about issuing a weekly, or at least a fortnightly

BULLETin on the outcome of this historic marathon between you and SKB.

That could be really *STRIKING*, I guess!

Apus

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

>

> Rohini Da,

>

> <<< I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! >>>

>

> We can change only ourselves, not others. Even God can change only

those who are ready for it. Was it possible to change a Ravana or a

Duryodhana ?

>

> The problem is we are always trying to find the Ravana in others, not

within ourselves. The Collective Unconscious of Jung is the triguni

Prakriti which is Jada/Jara (Unconscious) . It is present in all of us.

It must be got rid of ; that is moksha.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= ========= ====== ===

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Rohiniranjan rohini_ranjan@ ...

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:24:43 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Vinay-Ji,

>

> Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are

blessed to *give*, in a sense!

>

> When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was

blind and looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas

probably secondary to small pox or other infection. At first I used to

be scared of him because he looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic

and still had this smile that perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or

a plea for help, but so fixed! And the white corneas and all that.

>

> Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my

parents who were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it

or shared their feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back

in 50s that was not done.

>

> Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that

winter was coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously

failing health. I was touched! Modern children would have hugged their

parents and all that, of course that was a NO NO back then but I was

touched within!

>

> When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I

was surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He

had the same gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the

blanket and so on.

>

> He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on

his face with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was

a chilly day and he was visibly shivering@

>

> I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why

did he not wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

>

> Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to

learn Karma and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

>

> I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided

to not change his path and practice!

>

> Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path

nor ever tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine

decree! Hence my cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too

glibly and recklessly!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Rohiniranjan

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

.....> wrote:

> >

> > <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and

share

> > their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> > have made!>>>

> >

> > well said Rohini Da !!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

> >

> > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :-)

> >

> > But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two

beggars and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that

others can avoid the mistakes they have made!

> >

> > When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular

brank of cycle named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas

is carrying me, I must be as important as Planet Earth (a little

Sumerian joke!) "

> >

> > Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not

fall off the bike ;-)

> >

> > He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned

a bicycle!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , " sureshbabuag "

<sureshbabuag@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Prashant ji,

> > >

> > > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> > >

> > > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only

looks likes.....

> > >

> > > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or

rolls roice based on somebody's article.

> > >

> > > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life

wrote that it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> > >

> > > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and

loved all his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a

bently.

> > >

> > > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently!

what Rolls roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It

takes me to where ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very

costly to maintain too.

> > >

> > > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little

money and bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate

in luxury.

> > >

> > > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when

you pass by them near the busy market corner.

> > >

> > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Prashant Kumar G B

<gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > > >

> > > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially

NOT ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by

some owners, moderators with a agenda of their own

> > > >

> > > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and

some with vested interests against some ppl. indulge in

gossip/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads.

> > > >

> > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics

here and other groups

> > > >

> > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts

others have been discussed here as well

> > > >

> > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that

ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > > >

> > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has

universal appeal

> > > >

> > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not

a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls

who can see god even now.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > prashant

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > > >

> > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly

!!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > > >

> > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune &

context.

> > > >

> > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such

message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in

any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the

same way or in the forum he might have posted it?.

> > > >

> > > > Hope you understand

> > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > > >

> > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr

Sunil

> > > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > > >

> > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > > >

> > > > > You say:

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then

left it at

> > > > > that. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the

original

> > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha

pramaana " , and

> > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses

(ie,

> > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context.

Because of

> > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and

sutras

> > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in

the case

> > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses

which

> > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and

sutra

> > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the

exception in

> > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal

pratyaksha

> > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove

it :

> > > > >

> > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara),

yet is

> > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient

(sarva-vit) and

> > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > > >

> > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie

" thus the

> > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting

from

> > > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need

of

> > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > > >

> > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti

and

> > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states,

hence

> > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura

with

> > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and

Virochana failed

> > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so

in ch-4,

> > > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts,

made out

> > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work

and yet

> > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila.

" I do not

> > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for

your denial

> > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV,

which is

> > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it

amply clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study

ancient

> > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni

said

> > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long

Brahmacharya.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya

you are

> > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya

even once. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a

liar ???

> > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations

deliberately ?

> > > > >

> > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters

are Dvaita

> > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a

hypocrite or a

> > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in

Svetasvatara has

> > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara

Upanishad speaks

> > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance

and lack

> > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > > >

> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone

can see

> > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The

subject

> > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk

about soul

> > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can

be falsely

> > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary

references to

> > > > > Saamkhya.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow

who has a

> > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who

has no

> > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even

among my

> > > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > > >

> > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks

against me just

> > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting

ancient

> > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking

recourse to

> > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I

am not

> > > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > > >

> > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada,

which

> > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already

shown the

> > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Dear Vinay ji,

 

Where did this English expression, " ...but a small fry! " arise from?

 

I smell a FISH!

 

RR

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Thanks Prashant Ji, I chose to neglect the remarks of apus- " magna " , because I

am not a magna but a small fry.

>

> -VJ

>

> ________________________________

> Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:31:26 PM

> Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

Member

>

> pl rest the topic in peace now...

> not part of our group so lets avoid any ref in further, SKB has not become

part of this group so it is not right to say more than already said.

> which went thru in unmoderated posts. pl observe self moderation.

>

> prashant

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> apusmagna <apusmagna (AT) (DOT) in>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:18:56 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

> Well, charity begins at home or so they say Jha ji!

> My apologies for butting in, Rohini-jee, the message was addressed to

> you :-)

> And Jha ji, how about issuing a weekly, or at least a fortnightly

> BULLETin on the outcome of this historic marathon between you and SKB.

> That could be really *STRIKING*, I guess!

> Apus

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Rohini Da,

> >

> > <<< I have never questioned those who have found their path nor ever

> tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine decree! >>>

> >

> > We can change only ourselves, not others. Even God can change only

> those who are ready for it. Was it possible to change a Ravana or a

> Duryodhana ?

> >

> > The problem is we are always trying to find the Ravana in others, not

> within ourselves. The Collective Unconscious of Jung is the triguni

> Prakriti which is Jada/Jara (Unconscious) . It is present in all of us.

> It must be got rid of ; that is moksha.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= ========= ====== ===

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Rohiniranjan rohini_ranjan@ ...

> >

> > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:24:43 AM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Vinay-Ji,

> >

> > Only Bhikaris who have nothing remaining to give in this lifetime are

> blessed to *give*, in a sense!

> >

> > When I was a small child we used to be visited by a bhikari. He was

> blind and looking back and remembering he had white opaque corneas

> probably secondary to small pox or other infection. At first I used to

> be scared of him because he looked kind of strange. He looked pathetic

> and still had this smile that perplexed me as a child. It was a smile or

> a plea for help, but so fixed! And the white corneas and all that.

> >

> > Unfortunately, though we gave him alms always. Sadly, neither of my

> parents who were quite kind and dedicated individuals ever discussed it

> or shared their feelings about all of this, nor did I ask because back

> in 50s that was not done.

> >

> > Then suddenly one day my father showed us a blanket and said that

> winter was coming and he was worried about the bhikari and his obviously

> failing health. I was touched! Modern children would have hugged their

> parents and all that, of course that was a NO NO back then but I was

> touched within!

> >

> > When Bhikari-ji arrived next day, he was presented with the blanket I

> was surprised because I was expecting him to jump in glee and so on. He

> had the same gleeful kind of fixed expression and he left with the

> blanket and so on.

> >

> > He showed up a few days later as usual. He had the same expression on

> his face with no change. He did not have the blanket around him. It was

> a chilly day and he was visibly shivering@

> >

> > I was really perplexed and confused that day! I was actually sad! Why

> did he not wear the blanket that we gave him with so much love?

> >

> > Until I figured it out much much later when I grew up and began to

> learn Karma and Astrology -- I was not meant to understand why!

> >

> > I think I very quickly figured out thereafter why the Bhikari decided

> to not change his path and practice!

> >

> > Thereafter, I have never questioned those who have found their path

> nor ever tried too hard to change their chosen destiny and divine

> decree! Hence my cautious approach regarding prescribing *remedials* too

> glibly and recklessly!

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

> ....> wrote:

> > >

> > > <<<Only on Internet can the two beggars and the villager meet and

> share

> > > their experiences freely so that others can avoid the mistakes they

> > > have made!>>>

> > >

> > > well said Rohini Da !!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...>

> > >

> > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:18:55 AM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > > But look at the bright side, Shenoy ji! Only on Internet can the two

> beggars and the villager meet and share their experiences freely so that

> others can avoid the mistakes they have made!

> > >

> > > When I was a small boy in India, we used to have a very popular

> brank of cycle named Atlas. One day beggar wondered, " Just because Atlas

> is carrying me, I must be as important as Planet Earth (a little

> Sumerian joke!) "

> > >

> > > Then he began laughing! He retained his balance though and did not

> fall off the bike ;-)

> > >

> > > He must have been very special! The only beggar I ever saw who owned

> a bicycle!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , " sureshbabuag "

> <sureshbabuag@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Prashant ji,

> > > >

> > > > I don't know what is this game on the net.

> > > >

> > > > All these arguments about dwaitha, adwaitha & scriptures only

> looks likes.....

> > > >

> > > > Two beggars were fighting over which car is better - Bently or

> rolls roice based on somebody's article.

> > > >

> > > > The funny thing is, one person who had used bently all his life

> wrote that it is the ultimate in luxury but has not owned Rolls roice.

> > > >

> > > > Similarly the other author wrote of Rolls roice which he owned and

> loved all his life and claimed it is the best. He has not even seen a

> bently.

> > > >

> > > > Reading these an old man from a remote village said what bently!

> what Rolls roice! there is nothing better than my old rugged amaby. It

> takes me to where ever I want to go and what do you know? it is not very

> costly to maintain too.

> > > >

> > > > A few years passed by. Eventually one of the beggar saved a little

> money and bought a cycle - dearming one day he will attain the ultimate

> in luxury.

> > > >

> > > > You can hear them still arguing about which car is better, when

> you pass by them near the busy market corner.

> > > >

> > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Prashant Kumar G B

> <gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > this is a cross posted message of another group/s and bascially

> NOT ALLOWED IN MOST GROUPS AS A POLICY but is selectively abused by

> some owners, moderators with a agenda of their own

> > > > >

> > > > > at times with a good intention of a GOOD TOPIC to be shared, and

> some with vested interests against some ppl. indulge in

> gossip/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads.

> > > > >

> > > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics

> here and other groups

> > > > >

> > > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts

> others have been discussed here as well

> > > > >

> > > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that

> ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

> > > > >

> > > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has

> universal appeal

> > > > >

> > > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not

> a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls

> who can see god even now.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > prashant

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ >

> > > > >

> > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM

> > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly

> !!!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay Jha,

> > > > >

> > > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune &

> context.

> > > > >

> > > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such

> message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in

> any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the

> same way or in the forum he might have posted it?.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hope you understand

> > > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

> > > > >

> > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr

> Sunil

> > > > > > Bhattacharjya :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You say:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then

> left it at

> > > > > > that. " >>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the

> original

> > > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha

> pramaana " , and

> > > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses

> (ie,

> > > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context.

> Because of

> > > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and

> sutras

> > > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in

> the case

> > > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses

> which

> > > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and

> sutra

> > > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the

> exception in

> > > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal

> pratyaksha

> > > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove

> it :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara),

> yet is

> > > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient

> (sarva-vit) and

> > > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie

> " thus the

> > > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting

> from

> > > > > > ancient texts is again proven here.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need

> of

> > > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti

> and

> > > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states,

> hence

> > > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura

> with

> > > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and

> Virochana failed

> > > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so

> in ch-4,

> > > > > > sutras 17-19.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts,

> made out

> > > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work

> and yet

> > > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila.

> " I do not

> > > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for

> your denial

> > > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV,

> which is

> > > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it

> amply clear.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study

> ancient

> > > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni

> said

> > > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long

> Brahmacharya.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya

> you are

> > > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> > > > > > Upanisha " >>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya

> even once. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a

> liar ???

> > > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations

> deliberately ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters

> are Dvaita

> > > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a

> hypocrite or a

> > > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in

> Svetasvatara has

> > > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara

> Upanishad speaks

> > > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance

> and lack

> > > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone

> can see

> > > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The

> subject

> > > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk

> about soul

> > > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can

> be falsely

> > > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary

> references to

> > > > > > Saamkhya.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow

> who has a

> > > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who

> has no

> > > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even

> among my

> > > > > > students who are now heads of departments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks

> against me just

> > > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting

> ancient

> > > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking

> recourse to

> > > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I

> am not

> > > > > > going to use your abusive language.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada,

> which

> > > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already

> shown the

> > > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> > > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > ============ ========= == ==

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...