Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

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

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

> > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > >

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

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 â€“ 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

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