Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Kumar ji, Very balanced decision! You must have a strong Tula rashi in your chart I am guessing. No need to respond!! We should not talk behind anyone's back, when they are not part of the forum or have left! It is hurtful because it is what systemic discrimination is, really! Talk, criticise, marginalize, punish, deprive 'those' who are not even part of the discussion, conversation or communication! What is sad is that this conversation is happening not just here but elsewhere on other Jyotish Fora all of which are supposed to be LIGHTED HALLS and not dark corridors in some damp dungeon sub-terranian from where neither the sky nor the planets or stars are visible! I rest my case! RR , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). -VJ ================== === ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! 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 > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > -VJ > ================== === > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > 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 > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > -VJ > ============ ====== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > 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 > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Vinay ji, An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! And Ordinary! And thus equal! Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! Think about that for some time and not react in haste! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > -VJ > > ============ ====== === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Stop this " systemic discrimination " against a happening for which I have already apologised thrice, and said I will tender no apology henceforth, yet some " magna " members use this opportunity to post sarcastic remarks against me. I did not commit any crime, I did not know SKB (Mr Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya) was not a member here. It was SKB who started posting his replies to other fora without informing me. It was unjustified. I later found it, and concluded it was his method of " winning " a debate by not allowing me to answer. Thus, " systemic discrimination " was started by SKB, not by me. Rohini Ji has recently been informed by SKB that I had invited SKB to join those fora where I am able to answer him, because he wanted to discuss some points in AIA which I had left. Thereafter, he joined these fora, mainly with a view to waste my time over non-astrological issues. Had I known he will not discuss astrology, I would not have invited him. I am an active member of only three fora : JR, JG and VA (besides a forum of my own reserved exclusively for topics related to software problems and Suryasiddhantic discussuions). After my invitation, SKB joined these fora. I believed he joined all these three fora where I am active. Later , I was told he was not a member in JR. SKB recently said to Rohini Ji that he joined these fora after my invitation ; if SKB did not join one of those three fora where I am active, it was his fault and not mine. He should have informed me that he did not want to join JR after I invited him. Later, he neglected the offer of Prashant Ji also (the reason is SKB is an active member of Mr Sreenadh's team). Other persons do not know all these facts. But Rohini Ji knows these facts well. Hence, he is completely unjustified in putting the blame on me. He knows well well how many times SKB abused me, without a single abusive remark from me. I even started calling SKB " Da " to get rid of his barbaric mails. Rohini Ji himself tried to divert or mitigate the abusive discussions, but to no avail. Now, I have dacided to stop this nonsense by SKB for good. I will refrain from abusing him, but I will expose him thoroughly, esp in these two fora, and I am now also planning to expose him in all those where he is a member, because I have failed in all milder alternatives. Discussions can be carried out without personal attacks, but RR Ji wants to teach all manners only to me, never to SKB. RR Ji expelled me from his Cryatal Pages, without ever warning or informing me about his grievances gagainst me. I still do not know why I was expelled by him. In JR, I tendered apologies thrice, but now I am retracting all my apologies. I was fully justifiesd in posting a reply to SKB here because SKB accepted my offer of joining these fora as he recently informed RR Ji, and it was SKB who started posting copies of replies in other fora. I suspect he might be posting messages about me in fora where I am not a member. I will now search. I found some other members also doing the same about me : posting messages about me elsewhere without my knowledge. I do not want to name here, but such a member cannot be expelled from Crystal_Pages because she likes to discuss non-astrological topics likke cats and dogs. Rohini Ji has clearly told me that he will not discuss astrology with me because I am out of the way (or outdated, he does not clarify). I was asked by many members in JR to post case studies, which wasted over 200 hours of my time, and those members have no time to read those case studies. Therefore, I took up nobler tasks of starting a new Vedic Gurukul and adding modules to my softwares which are being used by a large number of persons who keep away from abusive fora. After an apology, the thread should have been closed. But even after the appeal of moderator, I am being charged of " systemic discrimination " . The use of a word " systematic " is not unintentional. It means my post was not a mistake but " systematic " . That is why even after three apologies, I was not forgiven by a magna and RR Ji. hence, I have to retract my apologies and state plainly that I was perfectly right in posting my message about SKB here because RR Ji is himself a witness of SKB's acceptace of the fact that SKB was invited by me to join these fora instead of inviting me again to AIA (SKB had invited me to AIA, because he was not convinced that I was abused sufficiently). I will now start analyzing the chart of Mr Rohiniranjan Ji who had once reprimanded me for mentioning exalted planets in his chart : I had to reply that the mention of exalted planets is not derogatory and I was surprized at his hot response at my eulogy. But now he is doing the same mistake : by eulogizing Tula in Prashant Ji's chart. Or are these rules applicable only in my case ?? I know many members of abuse me in private mails : some members have forwarded me such mails. Now, will Rohini Ji call these abuses as wrong in abusing me behind my back, or will he declare those persons guilty of breach of confidence who forwarded such mails to me ?? The depends on Theory of Relativity, ie, on your own attitude towards the protagonists and theor ideas. Rohini Ji knows well how many time I have been abused. Perhaps no astrologer was abused so much in a " systematic " manner over public fora just on account of theoretical differences over academic issues, which ought to have been carried out without personal attacks. SKB goes t the extent of saying that I am " obsessed with wine and women " . These mails are fit for a libel suit but I have nobler tasks at hand. SKB is carrying out a campaign of character assanination against me, and Rohini Ji never felt uneasy about it. Rohini Ji feels bad when I retort. It is because of those very exalted planets in Rohini Ji's horoscope. Normally, exalted planets are beneficial and make a person exalted in nature. But it depends on which planet is exalted. If cruel planets are exalted, one may be exalted in cruelty. It is for the first time I am using such words for Rohini Ji. I am compelled, because he is chargind me of of " systematic " discrimination agains an absentee, even after three apologies by me. " Syatematic " means I had a plan and I had a history of such acts. On the contrary, Rohini Ji carried out a " systematic " discrimination against me by expelling me from his forum wigthout my knowledge. he also declined to join my forum. And he turned down the offer a research article for a new astrological research magazine started by a recognized Sanskrit university. This time, I will not apologize for my words against Rohini Ji's " systematic " discrimination against me, because I am fed up with these fora which ask me to show proofs and when I show proofs then discussions are diverted to other topics. I am now in a mood to resign , or being expelled from all fora. but I am in a calm mood, because I know it will give me more time for more reative works. SKB does not even allow me to make further time on chart analysis, and keeps me engaged in non-astrological topics.He has no other task than to waste my time, and persons like Rohini Ji refuse to see " systematric discrimination " against me, and says he does not want to discuss astrology with me, which is a proof of hius own " systematic " discrimination : he discusses astrology only with those whom he certifies as real astrologers. Sanskrit scholars of Jyotisha are idiots, rascals, fools, & c & c. There is nothing more to say. -VJ ================================ ==== ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:56:44 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Kumar ji, Very balanced decision! You must have a strong Tula rashi in your chart I am guessing. No need to respond!! We should not talk behind anyone's back, when they are not part of the forum or have left! It is hurtful because it is what systemic discrimination is, really! Talk, criticise, marginalize, punish, deprive 'those' who are not even part of the discussion, conversation or communication! What is sad is that this conversation is happening not just here but elsewhere on other Jyotish Fora all of which are supposed to be LIGHTED HALLS and not dark corridors in some damp dungeon sub-terranian from where neither the sky nor the planets or stars are visible! I rest my case! RR , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@. ..> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. With due respects, -VJ ======================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Vinay ji, An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! And Ordinary! And thus equal! Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! Think about that for some time and not react in haste! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > -VJ > > ============ ====== === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 It's sad Vinay ji! I hope it was not my mail which triggered your pent up rage and verbal flurry against our learned and respected RRji who has shared himself – body, mind and soul - here on these forums for decades! All for Jyotish! My sincere apologies RRji, for this ugly episode. There was no sarcasm, may be a case of bad humor! Despite my sincere attempts to follow what you have been trying to deliver, sadly, I was quite lost on the essence of the on-going debate! (an individual problem of ignorance perhaps!) Since the debate is on astro-fora, and has enough footage to call attention, I was curious if I were missing out on something critical/crucial as a beginner in astrology. Hence a request for a summary (bulletin!), if you catch what I mean! There may be others who also feel like this. If there is one Absolute Truth, there are many ways to find that absolute truth. It is about our freedom of Mat (opinion) and Panth (Path)! Crux of what Sage Vyas taught us in the name of dharma is encapsulated in just four words (mano ya na mano!). Paropkaram punyaya, Papaya parapeedanam Who should know it better than YOU! Haven't we embraced all *theists*, and with love and respect, just because we always HAD those four beautiful words. I think it has to do with our perception. While you focused on *Magna*, it was Apus who was closer to reality. Apus, is a small, faint constellation meaning *no feet*. The suffix is just a magnifying glass for myself! Hope this message passes the test of moderation and shows up. I have been a silent observer on these lists and rarely feel motivated to write in the midst of fragile egos! I go back to my *Mauna* mode now! Thank you. Apus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Mr Apus, I never react in anger. Prashant Ji knows that I have pardoned those who abused my late mother in obscene terms in astro fora. RR Ji incomparable different from that obscene abuser. When I pardoned obscene abusers, why should I lose temper against RR Ji ?? But RR Ji was taking me too lightly, insentitive to the fact that I was being abused by SKB without any fault on my side. RR Ji even tried to divert the abuser away from me, but to no avail. Here, I committed the mistake of apologising for an act in which I was not guilty, because I was informed that SKB accepted my invitation to join JR, JG and VA. I did not know that he joined only the latter two and not JR. RR Ji knew that SKB was invited by me. Hence, RR Ji was too harsh when he said I was doing " systematic discrimination " against SKB, after three apologies from me. It was not a systematic or planned act by RR Ji, but a careless act. He forgot that he was holding the abused guilty, and not the abuser. RR Ji is a soft-hearted person, but this time I had to show him his harsh side. He is my elder brother, and I call him Dada. But I fear he will not forgive me, because I am also in no mood to beg forgivance. He should think. When he sees his mistake, I will apologize, but not now. SKB is spreading lies about ancient Puranas, Siddhanta-jyotisha, saamkhya-yoga & c, and when I cite those texts correctly I am abused. Most of these discussions have taken place on JG (and copies on VA). He is too conceited to admit his errors, and sticks to erroneous views even in the face of citations & c, retorting with abuses and blatant lies. Being a monk, I cannot use proper terms for describing him correctly. -VJ ======================= === ________________________________ apusmagna <apusmagna Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:51:07 PM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! It's sad Vinay ji! I hope it was not my mail which triggered your pent up rage and verbal flurry against our learned and respected RRji who has shared himself – body, mind and soul - here on these forums for decades! All for Jyotish! My sincere apologies RRji, for this ugly episode. There was no sarcasm, may be a case of bad humor! Despite my sincere attempts to follow what you have been trying to deliver, sadly, I was quite lost on the essence of the on-going debate! (an individual problem of ignorance perhaps!) Since the debate is on astro-fora, and has enough footage to call attention, I was curious if I were missing out on something critical/crucial as a beginner in astrology. Hence a request for a summary (bulletin!), if you catch what I mean! There may be others who also feel like this. If there is one Absolute Truth, there are many ways to find that absolute truth. It is about our freedom of Mat (opinion) and Panth (Path)! Crux of what Sage Vyas taught us in the name of dharma is encapsulated in just four words (mano ya na mano!). Paropkaram punyaya, Papaya parapeedanam Who should know it better than YOU! Haven't we embraced all *theists*, and with love and respect, just because we always HAD those four beautiful words. I think it has to do with our perception. While you focused on *Magna*, it was Apus who was closer to reality. Apus, is a small, faint constellation meaning *no feet*. The suffix is just a magnifying glass for myself! Hope this message passes the test of moderation and shows up. I have been a silent observer on these lists and rarely feel motivated to write in the midst of fragile egos! I go back to my *Mauna* mode now! Thank you. Apus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Now are you happy and all vented out, Vinay ji? ;-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Stop this " systemic discrimination " against > a happening for which I have already apologised thrice, and said I > will tender no apology henceforth, yet some " magna " members use > this opportunity to post sarcastic remarks against me. > > I did not commit any crime, I did not know SKB (Mr Sunil > Kumar Bhattacharjya) was not a member here. It was SKB who started > posting his replies to other fora without informing me. It was unjustified. > I later found it, and concluded it was his method of > " winning " a debate by not allowing me to answer. > Thus, " systemic discrimination " was started by SKB, > not by me. > > Rohini Ji has recently been informed by SKB that I had invited SKB > to join those fora where I am able to answer him, because he wanted to discuss > some points in AIA which I had left. > > Thereafter, he joined these fora, mainly with a view to waste my > time over non-astrological issues. Had I known he will not discuss astrology, I > would not have invited him. > > I am an active member of only three fora : JR, JG and > VA (besides a forum of my own reserved exclusively for topics related to > software problems and Suryasiddhantic discussuions). > > After my invitation, SKB joined these fora. I believed he joined > all these three fora where I am active. Later , I was told he was not a member > in JR. SKB recently said to Rohini Ji that he joined these fora > after my invitation ; if SKB did not join one of those three fora where I > am active, it was his fault and not mine. He should have informed me that he > did not want to join JR after I invited him. Later, he neglected the offer of > Prashant Ji also (the reason is SKB is an active member of Mr Sreenadh's team). > > Other persons do not know all these facts. But Rohini Ji > knows these facts well. Hence, he is completely unjustified in putting the > blame on me. He knows well well how many times SKB abused me, without a single > abusive remark from me. I even started calling SKB " Da " > to get rid of his barbaric mails. Rohini Ji himself tried to divert or > mitigate the abusive discussions, but to no avail. Now, I have dacided to > stop this nonsense by SKB for good. I will refrain from abusing him, but I will > expose him thoroughly, esp in these two fora, and I am now also planning to > expose him in all those where he is a member, because I have failed in all > milder alternatives. Discussions can be carried out without personal attacks, > but RR Ji wants to teach all manners only to me, never to SKB. > > RR Ji expelled me from his Cryatal Pages, without ever warning > or informing me about his grievances gagainst me. I still do not know why > I was expelled by him. > > In JR, I tendered apologies thrice, but now I am retracting all my > apologies. I was fully justifiesd in posting a reply to SKB here because SKB > accepted my offer of joining these fora as he recently informed RR Ji, and it > was SKB who started posting copies of replies in other fora. I suspect he might > be posting messages about me in fora where I am not a member. I will now > search. I found some other members also doing the same about me : posting > messages about me elsewhere without my knowledge. I do not want to name > here, but such a member cannot be expelled from Crystal_Pages because she likes > to discuss non-astrological topics likke cats and dogs. Rohini Ji has clearly > told me that he will not discuss astrology with me because I am out of the way > (or outdated, he does not clarify). > > I was asked by many members in JR to post case studies, which > wasted over 200 hours of my time, and those members have no time to read those > case studies. Therefore, I took up nobler tasks of starting a new Vedic Gurukul > and adding modules to my softwares which are being used by a large number of > persons who keep away from abusive fora. > > After an apology, the thread should have been closed. But even after > the appeal of moderator, I am being charged of " systemic > discrimination " . > > The use of a word " systematic " is not > unintentional. It means my post was not a mistake but " systematic " . That is why even after three apologies, I was not forgiven by a magna and RR Ji. hence, I have to retract my apologies and state plainly that I was perfectly right in posting my message about SKB here because RR Ji is himself a witness of SKB's acceptace of the fact that SKB was invited by me to join these fora instead of inviting me again to AIA (SKB had invited me to AIA, because he was not convinced that I was abused sufficiently). > > I will now start analyzing the chart of Mr Rohiniranjan Ji who had once reprimanded me for mentioning exalted planets in his chart : I had to reply that the mention of exalted planets is not derogatory and I was surprized at his hot response at my eulogy. But now he is doing the same mistake : by eulogizing Tula in Prashant Ji's chart. Or are these rules applicable only in my case ?? > > I know many members of abuse me in private mails : some members have forwarded me such mails. Now, will Rohini Ji call these abuses as wrong in abusing me behind my back, or will he declare those persons guilty of breach of confidence who forwarded such mails to me ?? The depends on Theory of Relativity, ie, on your own attitude towards the protagonists and theor ideas. > > Rohini Ji knows well how many time I have been abused. Perhaps no astrologer was abused so much in a " systematic " manner over public fora just on account of theoretical differences over academic issues, which ought to have been carried out without personal attacks. SKB goes t the extent of saying that I am " obsessed with wine and women " . These mails are fit for a libel suit but I have nobler tasks at hand. SKB is carrying out a campaign of character assanination against me, and Rohini Ji never felt uneasy about it. Rohini Ji feels bad when I retort. It is because of those very exalted planets in Rohini Ji's horoscope. Normally, exalted planets are beneficial and make a person exalted in nature. But it depends on which planet is exalted. If cruel planets are exalted, one may be exalted in cruelty. > > It is for the first time I am using such words for Rohini Ji. I am compelled, because he is chargind me of of " systematic " discrimination agains an absentee, even after three apologies by me. " Syatematic " means I had a plan and I had a history of such acts. On the contrary, Rohini Ji carried out a " systematic " discrimination against me by expelling me from his forum wigthout my knowledge. he also declined to join my forum. And he turned down the offer a research article for a new astrological research magazine started by a recognized Sanskrit university. This time, I will not apologize for my words against Rohini Ji's " systematic " discrimination against me, because I am fed up with these fora which ask me to show proofs and when I show proofs then discussions are diverted to other topics. I am now in a mood to resign , or being expelled from all fora. but I am in a calm mood, because I know it will give me more time for more > reative works. SKB does not even allow me to make further time on chart analysis, and keeps me engaged in non-astrological topics.He has no other task than to waste my time, and persons like Rohini Ji refuse to see " systematric discrimination " against me, and says he does not want to discuss astrology with me, which is a proof of hius own " systematic " discrimination : he discusses astrology only with those whom he certifies as real astrologers. > > Sanskrit scholars of Jyotisha are idiots, rascals, fools, & c & c. There is nothing more to say. > > -VJ > ================================ ==== > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:56:44 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Kumar ji, > > Very balanced decision! You must have a strong Tula rashi in your chart I am guessing. No need to respond!! > > We should not talk behind anyone's back, when they are not part of the forum or have left! > > It is hurtful because it is what systemic discrimination is, really! > > Talk, criticise, marginalize, punish, deprive 'those' who are not even part of the discussion, conversation or communication! > > What is sad is that this conversation is happening not just here but elsewhere on other Jyotish Fora all of which are supposed to be LIGHTED HALLS and not dark corridors in some damp dungeon sub-terranian from where neither the sky nor the planets or stars are visible! > > I rest my case! > > RR > > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Dear Vinay ji, I really do not understand why you are so upset at me to publicly malign me like this. This does not suit your scholarship! Oh and you wrote, I quote from below: <<> I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR.>> Vinay ji, THIS *IS* Jyotish Remedies (JR)! You should not write when you are this upset. Please take advice in good faith. I bear you no malice. You are after all a stranger! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > With due respects, > > -VJ > ======================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Vinay ji, > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Vinay ji, Please drink a glass of cold water, sit down, take a few deep breaths and with a clear mind read what I have written often: You and SKB are really strangers as far as I am concerned. All I know about you both (or anyone else) is what they wrote, what they have shown (intentionally or naturally). Hence I do not get involved in taking sides although you perceived me as doing so. I know perception is reality but it must not be based on 'impressions'. I was finding your and SKBs exchanges that were getting too personal and hence I requested that both of you gentlemen should perhaps take your verbal duel privately! That should not be misconstrued as me taking sides! Nor should I become the assailant in someone's mind, beautiful though it may be. My last post on this meaningless topic! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Mr Apus, > > I never react in anger. Prashant Ji knows that I have pardoned those who abused my late mother in obscene terms in astro fora. RR Ji incomparable different from that obscene abuser. When I pardoned obscene abusers, why should I lose temper against RR Ji ?? But RR Ji was taking me too lightly, insentitive to the fact that I was being abused by SKB without any fault on my side. RR Ji even tried to divert the abuser away from me, but to no avail. > > Here, I committed the mistake of apologising for an act in which I was not guilty, because I was informed that SKB accepted my invitation to join JR, JG and VA. I did not know that he joined only the latter two and not JR. RR Ji knew that SKB was invited by me. Hence, RR Ji was too harsh when he said I was doing " systematic discrimination " against SKB, after three apologies from me. It was not a systematic or planned act by RR Ji, but a careless act. He forgot that he was holding the abused guilty, and not the abuser. RR Ji is a soft-hearted person, but this time I had to show him his harsh side. He is my elder brother, and I call him Dada. But I fear he will not forgive me, because I am also in no mood to beg forgivance. He should think. When he sees his mistake, I will apologize, but not now. > > SKB is spreading lies about ancient Puranas, Siddhanta-jyotisha, saamkhya-yoga & c, and when I cite those texts correctly I am abused. Most of these discussions have taken place on JG (and copies on VA). He is too conceited to admit his errors, and sticks to erroneous views even in the face of citations & c, retorting with abuses and blatant lies. Being a monk, I cannot use proper terms for describing him correctly. > > -VJ > ======================= === > > ________________________________ > apusmagna <apusmagna > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:51:07 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > It's sad Vinay ji! I hope it was not my mail which triggered your pent > up rage and verbal flurry against our learned and respected RRji who has > shared himself †" body, mind and soul - here on these forums for > decades! All for Jyotish! My sincere apologies RRji, for this ugly > episode. > > There was no sarcasm, may be a case of bad humor! Despite my sincere > attempts to follow what you have been trying to deliver, sadly, I was > quite lost on the essence of the on-going debate! (an individual problem > of ignorance perhaps!) Since the debate is on astro-fora, and has enough > footage to call attention, I was curious if I were missing out on > something critical/crucial as a beginner in astrology. Hence a request > for a summary (bulletin!), if you catch what I mean! There may be others > who also feel like this. > > If there is one Absolute Truth, there are many ways to find that > absolute truth. It is about our freedom of Mat (opinion) and Panth > (Path)! Crux of what Sage Vyas taught us in the name of dharma is > encapsulated in just four words (mano ya na mano!). > Paropkaram punyaya, Papaya parapeedanam > > Who should know it better than YOU! Haven't we embraced all > *theists*, and with love and respect, just because we always HAD those > four beautiful words. > > I think it has to do with our perception. While you focused on *Magna*, > it was Apus who was closer to reality. Apus, is a small, faint > constellation meaning *no feet*. The suffix is just a magnifying glass > for myself! > > Hope this message passes the test of moderation and shows up. I have > been a silent observer on these lists and rarely feel motivated to write > in the midst of fragile egos! I go back to my *Mauna* mode now! Thank > you. > > Apus > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Dear Vinay-ji, This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional!) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > With due respects, > > -VJ > ======================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Vinay ji, > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Rohini Da, I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, two of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to uphold Truth. Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. -VJ =============================== === ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Dear Vinay-ji, This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > With due respects, > > -VJ > ============ ========= === == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Vinay ji, > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! Kind regards, RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, two > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > uphold Truth. > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > -VJ > =============================== === > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > With due respects, > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Rohini Da, I do not want to argue about it, but I may clarify myself ; I used the expression " Word is God " because it is accepted in Hindu as well as Christian (and Islamic) scriptures. In Hinduism, it means the Word of God known as Vedic literature. True and benefic thoughts can be based only on this set of divine Vedic Words. But true and perfect communication is possible not throuh words and thoughts, but after they subside, and Pure Consciousness remains, which makes any individual omniscient. Thought, then, is a disturbance in this ocean of Consciousness , which impedes proper reflrction, and after Nirodha of Chittaivrittis (thoughts) we get true reflections of ourselves in the tranquil pool. -VJ ========================= ==== ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! Kind regards, RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, two > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > uphold Truth. > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > With due respects, > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Although RR Ji has not retracted his comments about me ( " systematic " discrimination....), I am retracting all those words about RR Ji which might seem offensive to anyone. I do not need his retraction, I am OK with his comments. -VJ ======================== ==== ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! Kind regards, RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, two > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > uphold Truth. > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > With due respects, > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Thoughts arises out of movement. Movement in the Consciousness. Some may treat that as a disturbance, others may see in that movement that consciousness lives! , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I do not want to argue about it, but I may clarify myself ; I used the expression " Word is God " because it is accepted in Hindu as well as Christian (and Islamic) scriptures. In Hinduism, it means the Word of God known as Vedic literature. > > True and benefic thoughts can be based only on this set of divine Vedic Words. > > But true and perfect communication is possible not throuh words and thoughts, but after they subside, and Pure Consciousness remains, which makes any individual omniscient. Thought, then, is a disturbance in this ocean of Consciousness , which impedes proper reflrction, and after Nirodha of Chittaivrittis (thoughts) we get true reflections of ourselves in the tranquil pool. > > -VJ > ========================= ==== > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! > > One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? > > Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! > > Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! > > Kind regards, > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, > two > > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > > uphold Truth. > > > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ========= = === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > > > With due respects, > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Sir, Consciousness has two meanings : one is ancient indian which I used, the other is modern which is merely the upper level of Unconscious Mind according to Vedic schools of philosophy. without enlightenment, this distinction cannot be proven, because the real Consciousness lies hidden undrneath the socalled Collective Unconsciousness which Karl Jung wrongly said to be source of all great achievements in science and arts. Unconsciousness cannot be source of supreme things. It is the Collective Consciousness hidden behind the Unconsciousness which is the source of all good achievements. Collective Consciousness is a wrong term which I used to drive home the point, because real Consciousness is always collective : it already contains the prefix " con- " and there is no need to add " collective " . This Collective Consciousness is known as God, Who can be perceived/felt ONLY by true aadhus, and cannot be proven to unconscious persons. It is God who teaches us through intuition. Kekule' benzene ring did not come out of void. Unconscious Mind has no power to visualize molecular structure. -VJ ============================ == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:31:25 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Thoughts arises out of movement. Movement in the Consciousness. Some may treat that as a disturbance, others may see in that movement that consciousness lives! , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I do not want to argue about it, but I may clarify myself ; I used the expression " Word is God " because it is accepted in Hindu as well as Christian (and Islamic) scriptures. In Hinduism, it means the Word of God known as Vedic literature. > > True and benefic thoughts can be based only on this set of divine Vedic Words. > > But true and perfect communication is possible not throuh words and thoughts, but after they subside, and Pure Consciousness remains, which makes any individual omniscient. Thought, then, is a disturbance in this ocean of Consciousness , which impedes proper reflrction, and after Nirodha of Chittaivrittis (thoughts) we get true reflections of ourselves in the tranquil pool. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! > > One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? > > Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! > > Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! > > Kind regards, > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, > two > > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > > uphold Truth. > > > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ========= = === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > > > With due respects, > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Reposted with one {divisive typo} corrected! |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Ah! So -- consciousness which can only be ONE, as REALITY must, and cannot have more than ONE meaning -- has fallen prey again to ethno-territorial perceptions, has it? All 'terms' are wrong, Vinay-ji, for they are merely trying to {bridge} the VAST DIVIDE between DESCRIBING and EXPERIENCING! All the Philosophers, Gurus, even SAGES and teachers of course were just trying their best to 'bridge the divide': between knowing and experiencing! , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Sir, > > Consciousness has two meanings : one is ancient indian which I used, the other is modern which is merely the upper level of Unconscious Mind according to Vedic schools of philosophy. without enlightenment, this distinction cannot be proven, because the real Consciousness lies hidden undrneath the socalled Collective Unconsciousness which Karl Jung wrongly said to be source of all great achievements in science and arts. Unconsciousness cannot be source of supreme things. It is the Collective Consciousness hidden behind the Unconsciousness which is the source of all good achievements. Collective Consciousness is a wrong term which I used to drive home the point, because real Consciousness is always collective : it already contains the prefix " con- " and there is no need to add " collective " . This Collective Consciousness is known as God, Who can be perceived/felt ONLY by true aadhus, and cannot be proven to unconscious persons. It is God who teaches us > through intuition. Kekule' benzene ring did not come out of void. Unconscious Mind has no power to visualize molecular structure. > > -VJ > ============================ == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:31:25 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Thoughts arises out of movement. Movement in the Consciousness. Some may treat that as a disturbance, others may see in that movement that consciousness lives! > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > I do not want to argue about it, but I may clarify myself ; I used the expression " Word is God " because it is accepted in Hindu as well as Christian (and Islamic) scriptures. In Hinduism, it means the Word of God known as Vedic literature. > > > > True and benefic thoughts can be based only on this set of divine Vedic Words. > > > > But true and perfect communication is possible not throuh words and thoughts, but after they subside, and Pure Consciousness remains, which makes any individual omniscient. Thought, then, is a disturbance in this ocean of Consciousness , which impedes proper reflrction, and after Nirodha of Chittaivrittis (thoughts) we get true reflections of ourselves in the tranquil pool. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! > > > > One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? > > > > Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! > > > > Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > > > > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > > > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > > > > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, > > two > > > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > > > > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > > > uphold Truth. > > > > > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > > > > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > > > > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > > > > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > > > > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > > > > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ========= = === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > > > > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > > > > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > > > > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > > > > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > > > > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > > > > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > > > > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > > > > > With due respects, > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Lord Acton said : study should be pursued with the chastity of mathematics. Terms ought to be defined correctly in proper contexts. " Definition " is itselt not properly defined by the majority. Unless each and every term is defined properly, accurate Thoughts cannot take shape. Thoughts arise in Chitta, which is a Jada thing, a part of Prakriti. Real Chaitanya is Purusha. Thus, there are two types of 'Chit-' even in Sanskrit, and there is no ethnic-territorial divide, although persons saat samundar away from me can take my words as coming from a person obsessed with ethnic-territorial divide. -VJ ======================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:11:50 AM Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Reposted with one {divisive typo} corrected! |||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||| Ah! So -- consciousness which can only be ONE, as REALITY must, and cannot have more than ONE meaning -- has fallen prey again to ethno-territorial perceptions, has it? All 'terms' are wrong, Vinay-ji, for they are merely trying to {bridge} the VAST DIVIDE between DESCRIBING and EXPERIENCING! All the Philosophers, Gurus, even SAGES and teachers of course were just trying their best to 'bridge the divide': between knowing and experiencing! , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sir, > > Consciousness has two meanings : one is ancient indian which I used, the other is modern which is merely the upper level of Unconscious Mind according to Vedic schools of philosophy. without enlightenment, this distinction cannot be proven, because the real Consciousness lies hidden undrneath the socalled Collective Unconsciousness which Karl Jung wrongly said to be source of all great achievements in science and arts. Unconsciousness cannot be source of supreme things. It is the Collective Consciousness hidden behind the Unconsciousness which is the source of all good achievements. Collective Consciousness is a wrong term which I used to drive home the point, because real Consciousness is always collective : it already contains the prefix " con- " and there is no need to add " collective " . This Collective Consciousness is known as God, Who can be perceived/felt ONLY by true aadhus, and cannot be proven to unconscious persons. It is God who teaches us > through intuition. Kekule' benzene ring did not come out of void. Unconscious Mind has no power to visualize molecular structure. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ======= == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:31:25 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Thoughts arises out of movement. Movement in the Consciousness. Some may treat that as a disturbance, others may see in that movement that consciousness lives! > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > I do not want to argue about it, but I may clarify myself ; I used the expression " Word is God " because it is accepted in Hindu as well as Christian (and Islamic) scriptures. In Hinduism, it means the Word of God known as Vedic literature. > > > > True and benefic thoughts can be based only on this set of divine Vedic Words. > > > > But true and perfect communication is possible not throuh words and thoughts, but after they subside, and Pure Consciousness remains, which makes any individual omniscient. Thought, then, is a disturbance in this ocean of Consciousness , which impedes proper reflrction, and after Nirodha of Chittaivrittis (thoughts) we get true reflections of ourselves in the tranquil pool. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! > > > > One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? > > > > Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! > > > > Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > > > > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > > > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > > > > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these non-astrologers, > > two > > > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > > > > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > > > uphold Truth. > > > > > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > > > > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > > > > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > > > > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > > > > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > > > > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ========= = === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > > > > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > > > > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > > > > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > > > > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > > > > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > > > > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > > > > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > > > > > With due respects, > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dear Vinay-ji, I must have tickled your fancy somehow! I think you have overestimated me again as I have tried to remind you a few times earlier! A wise archer, one with true understanding always focuses his BEING on the target that he was destined to achieve in this lifetime! Sometimes we must listen to those who have seen and experienced this world a few years more than we have! At least in worldly matters! I am direct! That, I have been told by many, is my biggest asset! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Lord Acton said : study should be pursued with the chastity of mathematics. > > Terms ought to be defined correctly in proper contexts. " Definition " is itselt not properly defined by the majority. Unless each and every term is defined properly, accurate Thoughts cannot take shape. Thoughts arise in Chitta, which is a Jada thing, a part of Prakriti. Real Chaitanya is Purusha. Thus, there are two types of 'Chit-' even in Sanskrit, and there is no ethnic-territorial divide, although persons saat samundar away from me can take my words as coming from a person obsessed with ethnic-territorial divide. > > -VJ > > ======================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:11:50 AM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > Reposted with one {divisive typo} corrected! > |||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||| > > Ah! > > So -- consciousness which can only be ONE, as REALITY must, and cannot have more > than ONE meaning -- has fallen prey again to ethno-territorial perceptions, has > it? > > All 'terms' are wrong, Vinay-ji, for they are merely trying to {bridge} the VAST > DIVIDE between DESCRIBING and EXPERIENCING! > > All the Philosophers, Gurus, even SAGES and teachers of course were just trying > their best to 'bridge the divide': between knowing and experiencing! > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Sir, > > > > Consciousness has two meanings : one is ancient indian which I used, the other is modern which is merely the upper level of Unconscious Mind according to Vedic schools of philosophy. without enlightenment, this distinction cannot be proven, because the real Consciousness lies hidden undrneath the socalled Collective Unconsciousness which Karl Jung wrongly said to be source of all great achievements in science and arts. Unconsciousness cannot be source of supreme things. It is the Collective Consciousness hidden behind the Unconsciousness which is the source of all good achievements. Collective Consciousness is a wrong term which I used to drive home the point, because real Consciousness is always collective : it already contains the prefix " con- " and there is no need to add " collective " . This Collective Consciousness is known as God, Who can be perceived/felt ONLY by true aadhus, and cannot be proven to unconscious persons. It is God who teaches us > > through intuition. Kekule' benzene ring did not come out of void. Unconscious Mind has no power to visualize molecular structure. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:31:25 AM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > Thoughts arises out of movement. Movement in the Consciousness. Some may treat that as a disturbance, others may see in that movement that consciousness lives! > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > I do not want to argue about it, but I may clarify myself ; I used the expression " Word is God " because it is accepted in Hindu as well as Christian (and Islamic) scriptures. In Hinduism, it means the Word of God known as Vedic literature. > > > > > > True and benefic thoughts can be based only on this set of divine Vedic Words. > > > > > > But true and perfect communication is possible not throuh words and thoughts, but after they subside, and Pure Consciousness remains, which makes any individual omniscient. Thought, then, is a disturbance in this ocean of Consciousness , which impedes proper reflrction, and after Nirodha of Chittaivrittis (thoughts) we get true reflections of ourselves in the tranquil pool. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 11:08:59 AM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > That was a beautiful sharing, Vinay ji, soul-to-soul! > > > > > > One little wrinkle/variations if dada may introduce? Apropos your finishing statement? > > > > > > Thought is Divine, but 'word' will always remain human! > > > > > > Words hurt, bring out adverse reactions and retaliations but in the end, the thought reigns supreme for it gets 'conveyed' once words and emotions die, once the tide subsides and the Ocean regains its rightful place, reality remains! > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini Da, > > > > > > > > I agree with all your points, excepting on two. To differ is a sign of life ; even Rishis sometimes differed, although in fora I often invite personal abuses on account of intellectual differences. > > > > > > > > You asked me to calm down & c. But I what I wrote was in perfect calmness. I never used strong words against that person who abused me with obscene terms for my late mother & c, and readily pardoned him. Why should I be agitated with your non-abusive remarks ?? Nor do I think you have some design against me. But some of your comments ought to have been expressed privatelt and not on a public forum. For instance, the charge of my " systematic " discrimination against SKB even after my three apologies for not knowing that SKB was not a member in JR , although I was led to believe he was a member, as he told even you that I had invited him to these fora where I participate, because he wanted to discuss things in AIA which I had left, and he indeed joined JG and VA after my invitation, but perhaps did not join JR or left after joining which I do not really know. At that time, i did not know he had a design against me, and I really believed him to be a > > > > scientist, which he is not. He got some degree and entered into service in an American private company, and his job was related to chemical effusions and environmental protection. It is a good field of activity, but he made no contribution in this or any field as a scientist or as anything, excepting earning money by doing official duty. > > > > > > > > As I got from a recent message, he is earning money by delivering lectures to NRIs and foreigners about Indology & c. I have scanned his postings in many other fora. He has been expelled from some fora on account of his unsubtantiated argumentation like a fanatic. In a forum of Shri Venkat Krishnan, when the forwarded verses from Matsya Purana which clearly defined the length of Divya Varsha, SKB refused to accept it and said let krishnan ji follow Matsya Purana, I will follow Vayu Purana, although Vayu Purana contains no such thing claimed by him, and when I ask him to cite the verse in Sanskrit, I get abuses in return. This type of behaviour with Hindu scriptures is not a personal matter of Vinay Jha, although you have a right to keep aloof. I never wanted to waste my time over SKB, Hari Malla and Kaul, but they have agendas against Suryasiddhanta which I cannot overlook. none of them are astrologers, and moderators should ban these > non-astrologers, > > > two > > > > of whom openly abuse all astrologers as being thugs. SKB is cleverer, he pays a lip service to astrology, but has no interest in it. His sole purpose is to establish himself as the greatest expert of all indological disciplines to feed his ego and pockets. He led a lascivious life, was always a drunkard, has a failing memory, and supports vaamamaarga Tantricism for justifying his own love for wine and women. In AIA, my thread on Tantric Astrology was diverted to wine, but I did not mention that it was also diverted to eulogise the benefits of sex in Vaamamaargi Tantra. > > > > > > > > Second point on which I differ is that I think if astrological fora are taken more seriously, the level of contribution by others will also improve. You need not say you write serious things. I have read and saved your articles. I know these fora cannot be rectified, but I cannot give up my duty. In the introduction to my book on Suryasiddhanta in Hindi, I has written " All attempts to re-establish Satyuga in Kali Age are bound to prove futile (because Kaala-chakra cannot be reversed), but those who try to do so will get personal benefits (unkaa apnaa bhalaa avashya hogaa), because Truth defends those who defend Truth " . To be neutral between truth and Falsehood is not neutrality. Neutrality is to become like Brahman (attain brahma-roopataa through samaadhi and moksha as Saamkhya says), because He has no desire and therefore no partisan attitude. Yet Brahman is not neutral when battle between Truth and Falsehood takes place, and generates Ishvara to > > > > uphold Truth. > > > > > > > > Truth is not facts perceived empirically or described in texts. Sat is what is in sattaa, and what is Sat will never become asat, ie will always remain in sattaa (existence). Hence, this material world and its relations like brother, mother, etc, are not Sat. They are ephemeral relations, although we are bound to do our duty to them, without being driven with Moha which is sin. Sat is that inextinguishable Divine Jyoti present in all animate creatures, which never dies out, but becomes invisible due to the thick fog of Unconscious Mind (=Asura) accumulated on account of our past sins, and to uphold and strengthen (dhr > dharma) this invisible eternal (=sanaatana) Jyoti by killing the Asura is Sanaatana Dharma. There is no place for neutrality in Sanaatana Dharma. > > > > > > > > Jyotisha is the Eye of Veda (=Spiritual Knowledge) because it enables us to see the ultimate reality through understanding karmas and phalas, and the cycle of rebirths ensuing out of those phalas, so that we might be induced to get rid of this endless chain or rebirths. Jyotisha is not a profession for making a living. > > > > > > > > I agree with you that astrological fora are not proper places for serious astrology and esp for monks. I am not here for ever. But to be non-serious is against my nature. I know this whole world is false and maayaa. But living creatures are entrapped in it. How I can take so many creatures non-seriously ? > > > > > > > > JR is the only forum which has ensured that no unwarranted abuses will be allowed, either against me or by me, and that is why I like this forum and esp Prashant Ji. And that is why SKB keeps away from JR, because his chief aim is to abuse me, and not discuss things properly. > > > > > > > > Sometimes, if not always, advices from an unknown younger brother should be heeded, and on rare occassions such advices may even come in the form of apparently unsavoury words. Can you justify the use of a word " systematic discrimination " even after three apologies from me, although there was no need to tender any apology because I was cheated to believe that SKB has joined these fora as he said to me and to you ?? I demand no answer from you, although I know you do not feel the use of the word " systematic' was unjustified, which suggested I had a systematic plan to malign SKB, which is actually what SKB has been doing ever since he knew me and my works in AIA. > > > > > > > > Word is God. Each and every word should be used with utmost care, although we may falter, being humans. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ========= = === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 17, 2009 5:34:37 AM > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay-ji, > > > > > > > > This is a sincere statement from my simple heart that you have stated so a few times, so please take the following statements as WYSIWYG, and not otherwise. > > > > > > > > I realize that a few others, including our dear Prashant-ji have at times, gotten a bit impatient with my so called non-astrological content in my postings. It is understandable. > > > > > > > > But I write a fair bit of technical astrology through articles, written in the past and continuing! Many of these in more serious settings and not necessarily internet, with editorial review etc -- which is how it should be or else we end up with Internet technical astrology which varies a lot across the spectrum. > > > > > > > > I also have a personal aversion to merely copying and pasting and rehashing or regurgitating what has already been written by others in readily available books! So I am okay if someone may express chagrin at the seeming paucity of technical astrology in my messages in the Internet fora. This must not be misunderstood or generalized because there are some very good articles on internet and so on. > > > > > > > > But, that said, my perspective is a bit different from others and I hope at least some of the readers may agree and might have tuned-in to that! But also, it may confuse some readers who view astrology as a hard and fast codex of rules and keys that will open the lock of destiny behind which the mystery of human experience is locked, in their opinion. The " answers " that are missing from their lives which seems only full of questions requiring URGENT answers as we often see in reading requests on public fora! That is what the utility of astrology is, in their minds and perception. > > > > > > > > For me, that is how it started, believe me! Then somewhere along the path, i (lower case intentional! ) became aware that Astrology is not merely a part of life, a subject that we can open like a book and close it and we can move on to another book or activity. Rather, it *is* life! For me it is not a static, though pithy book of formulae and equations such as one that describes the pure science of chemistry! On the contrary, it is chemistry itself! Or the same can be said of physics or biology! To cut to the chase: All that is part of life is astrology and there is nothing NON-ASTROLOGICAL :-) > > > > > > > > I am confident that a brilliant mind and a heart ONE with the DIVINE like you evidently possess -- being the brave one who had the rare gumption of giving up the world and its distractions when you chose to assume a hermetical state -- would readily understand and agree with me. > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Respected Rohiniranjan Ji, > > > > > > > > > > I put same great value to non-astrological ouporings from you which you put to my astrological works. I devote my time to completing the astrological task at hand, running some gurukulas ans colleges, and reading scriptures and meditating. I have no time for meditating on non-astrological contents from fora. > > > > > > > > > > I really did not expect a " systematic " distortion of my statements by you, here as well as in JR. > > > > > > > > > > My answer in JR may induce you to break all communication with me, which I guess from your past behaviour (your strong reaction at mt eulogical mentioning of exalted planets). Now I have crossed the limits, perhaps. Prove me wrong ! > > > > > > > > > > I have tolerated even obscene abuses, and pardoned the abusers, but I cannot tolerate " systematic " wastage of my precious time (by SKB and Mr Malla), more because these fellows are inhsincere and lack manners. > > > > > > > > > > " Think about that for some time and not react in haste! " > > > > > > > > > > It you react in haste, you will lose the rarest commodity in kaliyuga : a man avowed to Truth. But only a true man can recognize the Truth in others. I know you have this capacity, but you prefer to be pragmatic, keeping away from troubled waters. But Pragmatism and Absolute Truth cannot go together. > > > > > > > > > > With due respects, > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= === == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:11:22 PM > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay ji, > > > > > > > > > > An advanced being as you have often reminded us repeatedly on many fora surely must know that distortion is in one's perception and interpretation and not what was received! > > > > > > > > > > Once we enter this worldly reality, we must first acknowledge that we are all the same and but human! > > > > > > > > > > And Ordinary! And thus equal! > > > > > > > > > > Once that is accomplished, all EGO vanishes including the spiritual ego which is the biggest bane in Kaliyuga! Hence all these Sadhus, Religious teachers and Gurus fall flat and only very few continue to be worshipped for a few decades and then replaced by others! > > > > > > > > > > Think about that for some time and not react in haste! > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I learnt some Bengali while in school and I know the difference between moshaa and moshaaya. I did not expect you to distort my words : I used " moshaaya " which is a respectful term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:55:27 AM > > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Careful! A MOSHAA is an insult to a Bengali person! It is diminuitive and means a mosquito! > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless that is what you were trying to prove all this time and going after? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Sir, I am a small fry for a Bengali Moshaaya (SKB). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ====== === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:45:58 AM > > > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.