Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Niket, I can understand Sanskrit and speak English. I study the Shastra from Sanskrit primarily, English secondarily and in relation to the Sanskrit. There is no need to be averse to authoritative discussion of bhagavat- katha. There is no point to understanding karma / planets / self without simultaneous understanding of the Source. If you take issue with my statements specifically then be manly and fothright and say so directly. I disfavor indirect accusations. Yours Vic DiCara http://www.vedicastrologer.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 dear brother vic, first this is not for you this general , and command in general Sanskrit is different thing, command in Veda's Sanskrit is different thing, i am not questioning on any one's knowledge, it depends on one's head what he understand .. one line have several meanings which one is right who knows, each one have their own perception, and as i told purana's Sanskrit is different and Veda's Sanskrit is different, i am giving you very simple example of Shiva Tandav Stotra that is in different Sanskrit bhasha, tell me how many persons know it have how many ragas and in which raga notes have to come from where or which part of body, ok just think on which time one should pray to lord Shiva, as general one can perform puza of Shiva any time but as per Veda their is specific time for shiv puza. like that there are so many things, pls do not feel bad i was just quoting generally. i am giving you one example from one shloka, just check it out or ask some one that 700 shloka of durga saptshati is really available in any print version, as for counting there are 700 shlokas but if one will count rightly there are only 535 , rest are where ? and you can see in shastra there are so many shlokas have very deep meanings that not seems as we read or understand. giving you one shloka: in English i am trying to write but mistakes may be possible. yasya prabhavam atulam, bhagvanananto,brahmaharash, na heevaktumalam balam ch: saa chandika akhiljagatpripalanaya nashaya ch ashubha bhayasya matim karotu: just see the beauty of this, and see how much deep meaning it have. rgds' niket - Vic D jyotish-vidya Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:21 PM Re: my friends Niket, I can understand Sanskrit and speak English. I study the Shastra from Sanskrit primarily, English secondarily and in relation to the Sanskrit. There is no need to be averse to authoritative discussion of bhagavat- katha. There is no point to understanding karma / planets / self without simultaneous understanding of the Source. If you take issue with my statements specifically then be manly and fothright and say so directly. I disfavor indirect accusations. Yours Vic DiCara http://www.vedicastrologer.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Dear Niket, Thats one reason why I don't like indirect accusations. People whom one is *not* accusing may feel accused. The idea that one must have absolute mastery over Vedic Sanskrit before he or she can understand the essential teachings is a Karma- Kandi idea. Karma kand is inferior to jnana and bhakti margas. Frankly you can understand the meanings of the Vedas on the strength of Kripa alone. For example I am very lucky that in my unworthy life I received the causeless mercy of many, many, many exalted sadhus of the highest order. Due to that, not my ability to study, I have attained a small portion of priceless knowledge of tattva which has served me well and which by their continued mercy continues to stick with me and not flee from the sight and sound of my incessant aparadha. As you can clearly see, I have not achieved all of it. But I enjoy discussions and have clear understandings to communicate. Obviously one line or word of a Vedic Shloka has several meanings. It is the sishya or sadhak's job to understand *all* of them as well as their priority and inter-relation. Ultimately all the meanings combine to produce a single unified communication from Sri Bhagavan to the individual soul. > yasya prabhavam atulam, bhagvanananto,brahmaharash, na heevaktumalam > balam ch: > saa chandika akhiljagatpripalanaya nashaya ch ashubha bhayasya matim > karotu: > > just see the beauty of this, and see how much deep meaning it have. Yes it is beautiful. Thank you! Here is a similar shlok from Padma Purana. narayana-paranam tu jivanam hy ati-durlabham asya prabhavam atulam na janantiha kecana Just see the meaning there! The mysteries of Atulam cannot be known by anyone - BUT ( " tu " is always the most significant word in any shlok) only those who are " Narayana-Paranam " - those who have LOVE - will understand all his mysteries, because the beloved opens his heart freely to the lover. Thus knowledge of Sanskrit, pujas, mantras, etc. pales in comparison to the power of Bhakti! Yours Vic DiCara http://www.vedicastrologer.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 yes vic you are right, but what i think, the paramsatta (almighty) is one, for performing diff diff work have diff diff rupa , almighty have three things . 1 . kaaran 2. kriya 3. karta, as you see in every action or reaction in this universe all these three reasons are there. as in detail we can say: 1. Brahma creates this universe by the power of mahasaraswti, because mahasaraswti is gyana shakti, and with out gyana no creation is possible. 2. vishnu do paalan of this universe by the power of mahalakshmi, because with out money or arth feeding is not possible. 3. shiva do sanhaar of this universe by the power of mahakali because without power this is not possible. if you for doing every thing shakti (power ) is required, even in talking, breathing, may take it in broad spectrum in each and every thing power is required. hope you will be agree as i think the almighty is one, he/she (does not have any form) does not need to come on earth in any form, because self is creator and destroyer of every thing, when almighty feels that ego is increasing in it's creation , did some bigger things in front of them, to control, can see all demons. he create demons and given boon them and in end destroyed them. so all is his Maya, the param purush and his Maya is not different is one only, when ever he feels to destroy like kans or ravana like others he gave his part of powers to one whom he think is worthy, and one who have powers of god is equal to almighty as we understand but in real he did not need to take any form, he just change the form and give his powers to some one for performing desired work. just think when just by thinking only who can create universe and just by thinking who can destroy, for him demons or whatever datya are nothing, just for giving the lesson he creates them give boon and in end destroyed. just joke: he is alone in universe and seeing the play which we are playing by falling in his Maya, long discussion i can write more but too much space. so rest is better. all i say tatwa mimansa, if we read all 4 Vedas we can find so many hidden meanings all about this. but sure Vic , i did not comment on you, i just given my comment generally, pls do not get anger or hurt. understanding of devbhasha Sanskrit (Veda Lang) is not possible without gurukul padhati, that is available only in our Four muts where shankaracharayas are chairing the gurukul, like shrengeri etc. their is same standards like shastri, acharya, vachaspati, upadhyaa, vidhyvaridi, mahamahoupadhya, mandleshwar, mahamandleshwar, peethadhipati, kulpati, dharmadhikari, yati, mahayati, upshankaracharya, shankracharya. these all are classes to understand Hindu mythology and Veda and vedang. i am very much fortunate that i am one of the priya shishya of swami Shankar, but in last i am a businessman not astrologer, astrology is not my hobby , it is my passion, and i read it in gurukul with Vedas and vedang, astrology is not created by any saints, it was created by lord Shiva lord Shiva gave it to lord brhaspati and lord shukracharya and lord surya, and lord sun gave to lord hanuman , after that so many saints had written so many sagas, but basics are same, for simplification i say it ERP system of Almighty or 9P27NOS (9planet27nakshtra operating system like windows or linex etc) kind regards niket - Vic D jyotish-vidya Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:06 AM Re: my friends Dear Niket, Thats one reason why I don't like indirect accusations. People whom one is *not* accusing may feel accused. The idea that one must have absolute mastery over Vedic Sanskrit before he or she can understand the essential teachings is a Karma- Kandi idea. Karma kand is inferior to jnana and bhakti margas. Frankly you can understand the meanings of the Vedas on the strength of Kripa alone. For example I am very lucky that in my unworthy life I received the causeless mercy of many, many, many exalted sadhus of the highest order. Due to that, not my ability to study, I have attained a small portion of priceless knowledge of tattva which has served me well and which by their continued mercy continues to stick with me and not flee from the sight and sound of my incessant aparadha. As you can clearly see, I have not achieved all of it. But I enjoy discussions and have clear understandings to communicate. Obviously one line or word of a Vedic Shloka has several meanings. It is the sishya or sadhak's job to understand *all* of them as well as their priority and inter-relation. Ultimately all the meanings combine to produce a single unified communication from Sri Bhagavan to the individual soul. > yasya prabhavam atulam, bhagvanananto,brahmaharash, na heevaktumalam > balam ch: > saa chandika akhiljagatpripalanaya nashaya ch ashubha bhayasya matim > karotu: > > just see the beauty of this, and see how much deep meaning it have. Yes it is beautiful. Thank you! Here is a similar shlok from Padma Purana. narayana-paranam tu jivanam hy ati-durlabham asya prabhavam atulam na janantiha kecana Just see the meaning there! The mysteries of Atulam cannot be known by anyone - BUT ( " tu " is always the most significant word in any shlok) only those who are " Narayana-Paranam " - those who have LOVE - will understand all his mysteries, because the beloved opens his heart freely to the lover. Thus knowledge of Sanskrit, pujas, mantras, etc. pales in comparison to the power of Bhakti! 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, I appreciate what you have written. Thank you for writing. I would just add a word of caution that your viewpoint on the Supreme ultimately being devoid of form and personality tends towards the " Mayavadi " school, which is a poor school. Also please beware of the words from Krishna (Gita 9.11) avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-maheshvaram Mudhas ( " fools " , " asses " ) deride me, thinking I have taken shelter of an ordinary bodily form and personality ( " Manushim tanum ashritam " ). They have no knowledge ( " ajanantah " ) of the transcendant ( " Param bhavam " ) nature of my form and personality, and do not realize that this apparently " ordinary " form is the supreme lord of all beings and all things ( " Bhuta-maheshvaram " ). 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 friend geeta is only 5000 years old, read atharvshersham in atharvveda you will get all answer, and then pls write to me. u will be agree then veda is older then geeta, geeta is part of mahabharat, what you wrote that shloka have 3 meanings, but before i explane kindly read DevyaAtharvshersham in Atharvveda, you will get the answer. best wishes niket saraswat jyotish-vidya , Vic D <vicdicara wrote: > > Dear Niket, > > I appreciate what you have written. Thank you for writing. I would > just add a word of caution that your viewpoint on the Supreme > ultimately being devoid of form and personality tends towards the > " Mayavadi " school, which is a poor school. Also please beware of the > words from Krishna (Gita 9.11) > > avajananti mam mudha > manusim tanum asritam > param bhavam ajananto > mama bhuta-maheshvaram > > Mudhas ( " fools " , " asses " ) deride me, thinking I have taken shelter of > an ordinary bodily form and personality ( " Manushim tanum ashritam " ). > They have no knowledge ( " ajanantah " ) of the transcendant ( " Param > bhavam " ) nature of my form and personality, and do not realize that > this apparently " ordinary " form is the supreme lord of all beings and > all things ( " Bhuta-maheshvaram " ). > > > 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 Vic You have mixed two ideas. Niket has not derided the physical form of god. He has clearly stated that the Lord takes various forms at various times for various reasons. and that the form which has powers of god is god himself. What Niket has said in brief will be found in great detail and description in the following links. I hope posting the following links do no violate any guidelines. *Bhagavad Gita with Sankara Bhashya* http://www.sankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya.php http://www.sankaracharya.org is full of tremendous amount of literature. ***Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda<http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/vivekananda.htm> * http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm *THE GOSPEL OF SRI RAMAKRISHNA (KATHAMRITA)*<http://www.kathamrita.org/KathamritaMain.htm>Word to word translation by Sri Dharm Pal Gupta Om Namah Shivay Rajeev On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Vic D <vicdicara wrote: > Dear Niket, > > I appreciate what you have written. Thank you for writing. I would > just add a word of caution that your viewpoint on the Supreme > ultimately being devoid of form and personality tends towards the > " Mayavadi " school, which is a poor school. Also please beware of the > words from Krishna (Gita 9.11) > > avajananti mam mudha > manusim tanum asritam > param bhavam ajananto > mama bhuta-maheshvaram > > Mudhas ( " fools " , " asses " ) deride me, thinking I have taken shelter of > an ordinary bodily form and personality ( " Manushim tanum ashritam " ). > They have no knowledge ( " ajanantah " ) of the transcendant ( " Param > bhavam " ) nature of my form and personality, and do not realize that > this apparently " ordinary " form is the supreme lord of all beings and > all things ( " Bhuta-maheshvaram " ). > > > 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, > Niket has not derided the physical form of god. > > He has clearly stated that the Lord takes various forms at various > times for > various reasons. > and that the form which has powers of god is god himself. > He said that ultimately God has no rupa, no form or personality. This is unacceptable to one with a clear understanding. There *is* an aspect of Godhead which is formless and impersonal, this is known as " Brahmajyoti " - this is a factual and wonderful and legitimate aspect of God. But Jyoti emanates from an object! Thus Bhagavan Svarup (the transcendental form of God) is glorified throughout the vedas as the Sun planet which gives of the Jyoti of Brahman. Om bhur bhuvah svaha Tat-savitur varenyam Bharga devasya dhimahi dhiyah yon nah praccodayat. Is a fine and popular example. Thank you for the links. 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 Vic Shiv/Vishshu or Devta/Devi or Form/Noform or gita or veda ... infinity/trinity .....!...!..! This is endless topic, I am sure great old sages grew long white silky beard while thrashing this out. I shall give this topic a deep rest. It is more important to have faith on " some " aspect of god and follow " some " path, ((good, better or best can wait.)) I presume all decent roads would lead to god sooner or later, may be one road would take 1 million life times and second one 2 million. The longer the better, if any form of god resides in the heart during all those life times. May this topic get shanti. Om Namah Shivay Rajeev On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Vic D <vicdicara wrote: > Dear Rajeev, > > > > Niket has not derided the physical form of god. > > > > He has clearly stated that the Lord takes various forms at various > > times for > > various reasons. > > and that the form which has powers of god is god himself. > > > > He said that ultimately God has no rupa, no form or personality. This > is unacceptable to one with a clear understanding. There *is* an > aspect of Godhead which is formless and impersonal, this is known as > " Brahmajyoti " - this is a factual and wonderful and legitimate aspect > of God. But Jyoti emanates from an object! Thus Bhagavan Svarup (the > transcendental form of God) is glorified throughout the vedas as the > Sun planet which gives of the Jyoti of Brahman. > > Om bhur bhuvah svaha > Tat-savitur varenyam > Bharga devasya dhimahi > dhiyah yon nah praccodayat. > > Is a fine and popular example. > > Thank you for the links. > > 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, 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 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 , 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 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 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 , " 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 , 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 bhaskarji pls do not play politics, or word playing, no one is trying to push shree vic ji, i respect him he have very good knowledge, he is right on his place and i feel i am right on my place the problem is i am not too good in english language and not able to convert 100% my thoughts in this foriegn language and in sanskrit or hindi i cant type, but i understand shree vic ji must understand what is the mean of my saying and it was a discussion not war or not the fight for any thing, as i have invested my 18years in feet of lord shnkara and study approx all litretue included veda upnishad and other sutra also , so we were discussing , as he offered me limca, i am accept , and i am offring him filtered coffe. pls do not do this with me. regards niket saraswat jyotish-vidya , " 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 , " 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 , 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 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 Vicji Rajeevji,and Niketji, Vicji allow me to defend the accusation on me. Niketji I am not playing politics at all. If I do this, then no one would come to know also that I am doing so. I just wrote on the call of muy conscience, what I did. There is nothing personal here. I know you too are a good man and knew well that the thread was steering towards creation of factions, which my last mail has now evidently succeeded in avoiding. I have been pushed to the wall many times before ( On other forums which you are aware)and have singlehandedly taken the arguments and the people arguing, with no one to defend me. History was repeating here and i felt that here is a man of God,whom I must defend, thats all. This does not mean that you or anyone is not to be defended, when the situations so demand. Apart from this episode I always kjeep samabhava towards all, which is my nature. If You felt that I played politics, then I am extremely sorry. I have been a victim of politics several times before, and would be the last person to do so. Rajeevji, because we spoke on phone a couple of days back,regarding the rectification of your fathers chart, and you spoke so well, was the reason that I did not argue with many of your mails, which were no doubt very much exasperating to say the least, in this Forum. I could not have been patient with them like Vic has been if I was at the other end. But again this does not mean that you are not a good man. We are all lovers of our respective Gods. And we must take the common factor between us, that we are Bhaktas , and thus respect the other Bhakta, and no occasion should be made to arise, where one Bhakta has to prove or say that his devotion or knowledge is better than the other. Amen. Bhaskar. jyotish-vidya , Vic D <vicdicara wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar and Niket, > > Ok, this is about to become nuclear war. I'll have to put anyone who > sends a nuclear missile into moderation. Bhaskar and Niket, please > refrain and share some biscuits and tea. We can all get together and > munch on a few on a shady porch while watching the sunset. > > With love, > Vic > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:39 AM, astroiniket wrote: > > > dear bhaskarji pls do not play politics, or word playing, no one is > > trying to push shree vic ji, i respect him he have very good > > knowledge, he is right on his place and i feel i am right on my place > > the problem is i am not too good in english language and not able to > > convert 100% my thoughts in this foriegn language and in sanskrit or > > hindi i cant type, but i understand shree vic ji must understand what > > is the mean of my saying and it was a discussion not war or not the > > fight for any thing, as i have invested my 18years in feet of lord > > shnkara and study approx all litretue included veda upnishad and other > > sutra also , so we were discussing , as he offered me limca, i am > > accept , and i am offring him filtered coffe. > > > > pls do not do this with me. > > > > regards > > niket saraswat > > > > jyotish-vidya , " 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 , " 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 , 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...
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.