Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dear Niket, I have no access to your recommended reading. Please give your three meanings. There can only be one meaning. All three must agree. I would like to analyze your viewpoint on this shlok 9.11 You are of the opinion that older is better, but that is not the case. Older scriptures are for previous Yugas. Mahabharat is especially for Kali Yuga. To say the Gita is inferior is frankly preposterous and derogatory. The scriptures compiled later are, if anything, *better* than those compiled earlier because the author benefitted from experience. Thus Mahabhata is as good as a Purana. Upanishads are better than the Chatur Veda. Vedanta Sutra is better than the Upanishads. And Veda- Vyas' final work -Bhagavat Puranam is better than Vedanta Sutra, as I was authored after all the others and at the exact direction of his Gurudev, Sri Narada Muni. Yours Vic DiCara http://www.vedicastrologer.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dear Niket, Enough has been said. I will say nothing new. I will simply clarify. > i am not saying that geeta is lower then other, not at all, i just > want to say, what shree krishna told to arjuna, and what was IQ level > of arjuna, what he understood from him, the same one can understand > the meaning of shlokas now a days in kalyuga, i do not think so. If the Gita and Mahabharat can not be understood by us in Kaliyuga - why do advise us towards more ancient and confusing texts like atharvaveda which are even less intelligible to people of our intellectual stature. > if you just read geeta from both side (from arjun and shree krishna) > it takes approx 6 hrs, what you think in Warfield one will give > lecture to some one for 5 to 6 hrs, no, it was just transformation of > gyana, and shree vyas ji explained this gyana. The conversation took place in about 20 minutes. > as you told gurukuls are poor schools, No. I said *mayavad* is a poor school. A " vada " is in English a " school " of thought. Mayavad is a very negative school of thought. Regarding Dvait and Advait I recieved my diksha through Sri Madhva and Sri Ramanuja acaryas. I do not to advaitvada philosphy. I to acintya-bhedabhed-vada which is Sri Caitanya's school of Ramanuja and Madhva thought. I do not find advaitavada philosophy disagreeable, as I said, when it is brahman-oriented and not derisive or derogatory towards bhagavan svarupa. > shreemad bhagvatam is > written by lord sukdev who was the son of lord vyasdev, It was written by Vyasdev. Vyasdev tells the story of his son, Shukdev Goswami's recitation to Maharaj Parikshit. > vyasdev have > written 18 puranas, 64 upnishad, did you gone through with all > puranas, and upnishads, i do not think u did study of all these. No. Must I? You are being silly. Bhagavad-Gita, Vedanta Stura, and Srimad Bhagavatam contain the distilled essence of all the Vedas. I have studied them exhaustively with divine guidance. I have also studied the 108th Upanishad to this end: Isa. Therefore as a representative of Sri Madva, Ramanuja, Caitanya, and Bhaktivedanta I am authorized to comment of tattva. You are in a school which is antagonistic to those I represent. Naturally there will be discord. I am welcome to end it with that. I have stated what my Guru's wish me to state on this matter. > in India every hindu from any state who do worship any form of god > vishnu, krishna, rama, shiva, ganesha, surya, shakti they all respect > lord shnakracharay as god and form of god only, and follow the school > of thoughts from lord shankarachary. I am hardly unfamiliar with India, my friend. I also take Shankaracarya's feet upon my head with honor. However, in the opinion of my parampara his disciples have not clearly understood his teaching and therefore God sent Ramanuja, Madhva and Caitanya is succession to correct the misunderstanding. You continually ask if I have studied this or that, but have not addressed any of my points directly. Therefore I am quite satisfied that I have made my point. Now, although we may have diametric philosophical schools I would like to buy you a Limca and sit on the porch to discuss Cricket and be friendly. No sour feelings. Yours Vic DiCara http://www.vedicastrologer.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yes, let's drink a limca, now Niketji. On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:22 AM, astroiniket wrote: > dear vic ji, > > now i understand there is some confusion, ok let me clear it. > > **god is saakara and nirakara both** for detail if you can read > ramcharit manas, where shree sati ji wife of lord shiva asked same > question to lord shiva.*** > > i will use word almighty here. > > 1. brahma, visnu, mahesh, and others and theri forms are not supreem > almighty. > > 2. they are from of supreem almighty. > > 3. as one wish to see almighty in desired form , almighty will give > darshan in that form. > > 4. for almighty no form is required, almighty have all forms like > narsimhavtar, or all dashavtara. > > 5. almighty him self or herself in every bit of this universe and this > whole universe is in his left foot's thumb's nail. > > 6. human have very limited vision, thoughts, knowledge, imagine etc. > > 7. almighty is unlimited in all means, and is creator of this universe > it includes all cast which u can think and which we do not know. > > 8. these 9 planets governs only this galaxy and it's planets or stars > whatever is in this galaxy, but remem in universe broad spectrum is > cosmos may be billions of galaxy's are there, for detail pls read > veads specialy sam and yagurveda. > > 10. one who is limited cant say any thing about unlimted, that > unlimted when he / she wants to play , play with us through his or her > maya. > > i think now both we will get shanti. > > rgds > niket > > jyotish-vidya , Vic D <vicdicara wrote: >> >> Dear Rajeev, >> >> This topic *is* shanti. =) >> >> Form / noform is fine. As I said, Brahmajyoti is wonderful. One >> should >> be a brahmavadi who wants to appreciate the non-form of Godhead, >> not a >> mayavadi who declares that the forms of Godhead are maya or prakriti. >> There are many paths. Many of them are good, not all of them are. >> Mayavad is not a good path. >> >> Yours >> Vic DiCara >> http://www.vedicastrologer.net >> > > > > --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 delicious. dhanyavad. =) On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:40 AM, astroiniket wrote: > shree vic ji, i accept your limca, and i offer you a cup of coffee. > > rgds > niket > > > jyotish-vidya , Vic D <vicdicara wrote: >> >> Yes, let's drink a limca, now Niketji. >> >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:22 AM, astroiniket wrote: >> >>> dear vic ji, >>> >>> now i understand there is some confusion, ok let me clear it. >>> >>> **god is saakara and nirakara both** for detail if you can read >>> ramcharit manas, where shree sati ji wife of lord shiva asked same >>> question to lord shiva.*** >>> >>> i will use word almighty here. >>> >>> 1. brahma, visnu, mahesh, and others and theri forms are not supreem >>> almighty. >>> >>> 2. they are from of supreem almighty. >>> >>> 3. as one wish to see almighty in desired form , almighty will give >>> darshan in that form. >>> >>> 4. for almighty no form is required, almighty have all forms like >>> narsimhavtar, or all dashavtara. >>> >>> 5. almighty him self or herself in every bit of this universe and >>> this >>> whole universe is in his left foot's thumb's nail. >>> >>> 6. human have very limited vision, thoughts, knowledge, imagine etc. >>> >>> 7. almighty is unlimited in all means, and is creator of this >>> universe >>> it includes all cast which u can think and which we do not know. >>> >>> 8. these 9 planets governs only this galaxy and it's planets or >>> stars >>> whatever is in this galaxy, but remem in universe broad spectrum is >>> cosmos may be billions of galaxy's are there, for detail pls read >>> veads specialy sam and yagurveda. >>> >>> 10. one who is limited cant say any thing about unlimted, that >>> unlimted when he / she wants to play , play with us through his or >>> her >>> maya. >>> >>> i think now both we will get shanti. >>> >>> rgds >>> niket >>> >>> jyotish-vidya , Vic D <vicdicara@> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Rajeev, >>>> >>>> This topic *is* shanti. =) >>>> >>>> Form / noform is fine. As I said, Brahmajyoti is wonderful. One >>>> should >>>> be a brahmavadi who wants to appreciate the non-form of Godhead, >>>> not a >>>> mayavadi who declares that the forms of Godhead are maya or >>>> prakriti. >>>> There are many paths. Many of them are good, not all of them are. >>>> Mayavad is not a good path. >>>> >>>> Yours >>>> Vic DiCara >>>> http://www.vedicastrologer.net >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dear Bhaskar ji None of us gains anything by pushing other to the wall. Even if there is repeated emails it is only to understand someone point or to convey a point. The discussion may not have looked very friendly to people not intimately involved in this particular topic I will say that at least I have gained a lot in the last few days of discussions on this topic from Vic and Niket. thank you for the time and energy. Om Namah Shivay Rajeev On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear all , > > I do not know what are we trying to prove here. > I also feel that there is a heavy weightage > against Mr.Vic, by few over here, who are pushing > him to the wall, and he is at the very best a man > can be,to reply very wisely with equilibrium and > complete resemblance to logic > supported with the right usage of English > language which is missing in the'others. > > I can guarantee, when I read Mr. Vic's posts > in last one week, that none of us could have'had > the wiseness he posseses at his age, in our times. > he has quoted the best from the scriptures, and > the essence, which only comes from realisation. > I am not saying'that he has already realised , > but he is very much on that path. > Most of the members are most idiotically > arguing with him, and I can understand the time and > energy and the activity to the mind which is caused > to Mr. Vic due to this. > > And do not for a moment anyone think that I am > praising the Moderator for any kind of blessings. > I have my own Forum ( In fact I have 5 forums), > to look after, I dont care to please anyone out of turn. > But when i see a true man, and also see others > troubling him, then i feel it my duty to support > him. I have kept quiet only because of Mrs.Wendy here, > otherwise would have given a befitting reply to evey > argument put on board related to the religious > scriptures or about the Gods. > > Let the members first learn about Savikaar and Nirvikaar, > then talk. let the members first learn about the creation > of this world as mentioned in the scriptures, and then talk. > let the members arguing, first put forth what they know > instead of asking a poor tired young man who is rich > in knowledge of religion in all its spectrums,to > prove his own. > > I also wish that the members read the Bhagavada Gita by > Paramhansa Yogananda, to realise how such a great and long lecture > could have been given by Lord krishna to his friend, companion, and > relative Arjuna. > > Krishna is a MahaYogi, is known by ever Bhakta of the lord > and every ihabitant of Mathura, Vrindavan, dwraka and Barsana. . > > prove it otherwise. > > Bhaskar. > > jyotish-vidya <jyotish-vidya%40>, > " astroiniket " <astroiniket > wrote: > > > > > dear vicji, > > > > i am not saying that geeta is lower then other, not at all, i just > > want to say, what shree krishna told to arjuna, and what was IQ > level > > of arjuna, what he understood from him, the same one can understand > > the meaning of shlokas now a days in kalyuga, i do not think so. > > > > if you just read geeta from both side (from arjun and shree krishna) > > it takes approx 6 hrs, what you think in Warfield one will give > > lecture to some one for 5 to 6 hrs, no, it was just transformation > of > > gyana, and shree vyas ji explained this gyana. > > > > as you told gurukuls are poor schools, my dear friend then i should > > say you do not know any thing about shankaracharya's school of > > thoughts, their are 2 branches dvait and advait and both are same, > if > > u say krishna is param braham, then i say rama is also param braham > > did you read Ramayan or Ramcharit Manas ?, and shiva is also param > > braham did you read Rudrayamal?, ganesha is also param brahm, pls do > > not find the things just by reading one purana, shreemad bhagvatam > is > > written by lord sukdev who was the son of lord vyasdev, vyasdev have > > written 18 puranas, 64 upnishad, did you gone through with all > > puranas, and upnishads, i do not think u did study of all these. > > > > All puranas were written in simplyfy form because general man did > not > > or could not understand Veda's sanskrit, so some part which leads to > > bhakti charitra. > > > > there are five branches vashnav, shav, shaakt, ganpatya, adityak, > > > > but as clearly discribed in veda almighty is one, and it is also > > explained why so many rupas or forms, and how they got forms of > > vishny, brahma, mahesh. > > > > so before comenting on any tatwa the complete reading is needed, > > without reading of vead, if one say i know hindu mythology - it is > > completely wrong. > > > > in my view pls find the time buy all 4 veda and lord > shankaracharay's > > literature , read that then we can discuss on any shloka, because > till > > the time you will not understand the root of parashakti or almighty > > not possible to explain, it will be just like that a child who is in > > 10th standard chemistry and want to read doctorate thesis , please > do > > not feel bad, and also do not get offensive, but also do not say > poor > > or lower schools. > > > > in India every hindu from any state who do worship any form of god > > vishnu, krishna, rama, shiva, ganesha, surya, shakti they all > respect > > lord shnakracharay as god and form of god only, and follow the > school > > of thoughts from lord shankarachary. > > > > i respect you, but please must read all for veads and read them in > > sanskrit, then only you will be able to understand the base, i > respect > > shreemadbhagvatam and i read it daily, but all these things come out > > from veads only. > > > > as you study parashary padhty in astrology, lord parashar also have > > taken too many sidhants from vedas only. > > > > > > regards > > niket > > > > > > > > > > > > jyotish-vidya <jyotish-vidya%40>, > Vic D <vicdicara@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Niket, > > > > > > I have no access to your recommended reading. Please give your > three > > > meanings. There can only be one meaning. All three must agree. I > would > > > like to analyze your viewpoint on this shlok 9.11 > > > > > > You are of the opinion that older is better, but that is not the > case. > > > Older scriptures are for previous Yugas. Mahabharat is especially > for > > > Kali Yuga. > > > > > > To say the Gita is inferior is frankly preposterous and > derogatory. > > > The scriptures compiled later are, if anything, *better* than > those > > > compiled earlier because the author benefitted from experience. > Thus > > > Mahabhata is as good as a Purana. Upanishads are better than the > > > Chatur Veda. Vedanta Sutra is better than the Upanishads. And > Veda- > > > Vyas' final work -Bhagavat Puranam is better than Vedanta Sutra, > as I > > > was authored after all the others and at the exact direction of > his > > > Gurudev, Sri Narada Muni. > > > > > > Yours > > > Vic DiCara > > > http://www.vedicastrologer.net > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dear All, For the next three days we must fast from discussions on details of vedic philosophy. Let's leave it alone. Only limcas, biscuits, coffee, and jyotish discussions for three days. We have overindulged and should go on a diet. Please, no more replies to this thread. With love, Vic On Jun 25, 2008, at 11:06 AM, RajeevM wrote: > Dear Bhaskar ji > > None of us gains anything by pushing other to the wall. > Even if there is repeated emails it is only to understand someone > point or > to convey a point. > > The discussion may not have looked very friendly to people not > intimately > involved in this particular topic > I will say that at least I have gained a lot in the last few days of > discussions on this topic from Vic and Niket. > > thank you for the time and energy. > > Om Namah Shivay > Rajeev > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bhaskar > <bhaskar_jyotish > wrote: > >> >> Dear all , >> >> I do not know what are we trying to prove here. >> I also feel that there is a heavy weightage >> against Mr.Vic, by few over here, who are pushing >> him to the wall, and he is at the very best a man >> can be,to reply very wisely with equilibrium and >> complete resemblance to logic >> supported with the right usage of English >> language which is missing in the'others. >> >> I can guarantee, when I read Mr. Vic's posts >> in last one week, that none of us could have'had >> the wiseness he posseses at his age, in our times. >> he has quoted the best from the scriptures, and >> the essence, which only comes from realisation. >> I am not saying'that he has already realised , >> but he is very much on that path. >> Most of the members are most idiotically >> arguing with him, and I can understand the time and >> energy and the activity to the mind which is caused >> to Mr. Vic due to this. >> >> And do not for a moment anyone think that I am >> praising the Moderator for any kind of blessings. >> I have my own Forum ( In fact I have 5 forums), >> to look after, I dont care to please anyone out of turn. >> But when i see a true man, and also see others >> troubling him, then i feel it my duty to support >> him. I have kept quiet only because of Mrs.Wendy here, >> otherwise would have given a befitting reply to evey >> argument put on board related to the religious >> scriptures or about the Gods. >> >> Let the members first learn about Savikaar and Nirvikaar, >> then talk. let the members first learn about the creation >> of this world as mentioned in the scriptures, and then talk. >> let the members arguing, first put forth what they know >> instead of asking a poor tired young man who is rich >> in knowledge of religion in all its spectrums,to >> prove his own. >> >> I also wish that the members read the Bhagavada Gita by >> Paramhansa Yogananda, to realise how such a great and long lecture >> could have been given by Lord krishna to his friend, companion, and >> relative Arjuna. >> >> Krishna is a MahaYogi, is known by ever Bhakta of the lord >> and every ihabitant of Mathura, Vrindavan, dwraka and Barsana. . >> >> prove it otherwise. >> >> Bhaskar. >> >> jyotish-vidya <jyotish-vidya >> %40>, >> " astroiniket " <astroiniket >> wrote: >> >>> >>> dear vicji, >>> >>> i am not saying that geeta is lower then other, not at all, i just >>> want to say, what shree krishna told to arjuna, and what was IQ >> level >>> of arjuna, what he understood from him, the same one can understand >>> the meaning of shlokas now a days in kalyuga, i do not think so. >>> >>> if you just read geeta from both side (from arjun and shree krishna) >>> it takes approx 6 hrs, what you think in Warfield one will give >>> lecture to some one for 5 to 6 hrs, no, it was just transformation >> of >>> gyana, and shree vyas ji explained this gyana. >>> >>> as you told gurukuls are poor schools, my dear friend then i should >>> say you do not know any thing about shankaracharya's school of >>> thoughts, their are 2 branches dvait and advait and both are same, >> if >>> u say krishna is param braham, then i say rama is also param braham >>> did you read Ramayan or Ramcharit Manas ?, and shiva is also param >>> braham did you read Rudrayamal?, ganesha is also param brahm, pls do >>> not find the things just by reading one purana, shreemad bhagvatam >> is >>> written by lord sukdev who was the son of lord vyasdev, vyasdev have >>> written 18 puranas, 64 upnishad, did you gone through with all >>> puranas, and upnishads, i do not think u did study of all these. >>> >>> All puranas were written in simplyfy form because general man did >> not >>> or could not understand Veda's sanskrit, so some part which leads to >>> bhakti charitra. >>> >>> there are five branches vashnav, shav, shaakt, ganpatya, adityak, >>> >>> but as clearly discribed in veda almighty is one, and it is also >>> explained why so many rupas or forms, and how they got forms of >>> vishny, brahma, mahesh. >>> >>> so before comenting on any tatwa the complete reading is needed, >>> without reading of vead, if one say i know hindu mythology - it is >>> completely wrong. >>> >>> in my view pls find the time buy all 4 veda and lord >> shankaracharay's >>> literature , read that then we can discuss on any shloka, because >> till >>> the time you will not understand the root of parashakti or almighty >>> not possible to explain, it will be just like that a child who is in >>> 10th standard chemistry and want to read doctorate thesis , please >> do >>> not feel bad, and also do not get offensive, but also do not say >> poor >>> or lower schools. >>> >>> in India every hindu from any state who do worship any form of god >>> vishnu, krishna, rama, shiva, ganesha, surya, shakti they all >> respect >>> lord shnakracharay as god and form of god only, and follow the >> school >>> of thoughts from lord shankarachary. >>> >>> i respect you, but please must read all for veads and read them in >>> sanskrit, then only you will be able to understand the base, i >> respect >>> shreemadbhagvatam and i read it daily, but all these things come out >>> from veads only. >>> >>> as you study parashary padhty in astrology, lord parashar also have >>> taken too many sidhants from vedas only. >>> >>> >>> regards >>> niket >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> jyotish-vidya <jyotish-vidya >>> %40>, >> Vic D <vicdicara@> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Niket, >>>> >>>> I have no access to your recommended reading. Please give your >> three >>>> meanings. There can only be one meaning. All three must agree. I >> would >>>> like to analyze your viewpoint on this shlok 9.11 >>>> >>>> You are of the opinion that older is better, but that is not the >> case. >>>> Older scriptures are for previous Yugas. Mahabharat is especially >> for >>>> Kali Yuga. >>>> >>>> To say the Gita is inferior is frankly preposterous and >> derogatory. >>>> The scriptures compiled later are, if anything, *better* than >> those >>>> compiled earlier because the author benefitted from experience. >> Thus >>>> Mahabhata is as good as a Purana. Upanishads are better than the >>>> Chatur Veda. Vedanta Sutra is better than the Upanishads. And >> Veda- >>>> Vyas' final work -Bhagavat Puranam is better than Vedanta Sutra, >> as I >>>> was authored after all the others and at the exact direction of >> his >>>> Gurudev, Sri Narada Muni. >>>> >>>> Yours >>>> Vic DiCara >>>> http://www.vedicastrologer.net >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dear Rajeev and All, //The discussion may not have looked very friendly to people not intimately involved in this particular topic// I trust this particular topic has now run its course and I hope I will not have to remind members again that this is a jyotish discussion group. Best Wishes, Mrs. Wendy http://JyotishVidya.com ___ - " RajeevM " <rajeevmundra <jyotish-vidya > Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:06 AM Re: Re: my friends Dear Bhaskar ji None of us gains anything by pushing other to the wall. Even if there is repeated emails it is only to understand someone point or to convey a point. The discussion may not have looked very friendly to people not intimately involved in this particular topic I will say that at least I have gained a lot in the last few days of discussions on this topic from Vic and Niket. thank you for the time and energy. Om Namah Shivay Rajeev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.