Cross-posted critiques ...!

[Guest guest]

Cross-posting in bits and pieces and often without context, even if

unintentionally done (some people get confused between different fora presumably

because they see some of the same people in different fora), but when the

subject matter of the post is to criticise someone, rightly or wrongly, this is

unfair practice and must not be tolerated by moderators, no matter WHO is behind

the posting!

 

This brings and spreads bad-blood and ill-feelings and creates unnecessary

turbulence in all concerned.

 

I wish this message and admonition -- if someone wants to label this so --

should rightfully have come from a moderator or owner, but it is the duty of ALL

members who hold in esteem this group and feel that they belong to this group to

bring up such admonishment and express it. Hence I speak these words, and not to

offend anyone or to overstep my rights and bounds here as an ordinary member.

 

If we are truly bringing some useful facts from other fora, and the purpose of

posting is not to spread criticism far and wide through cross-posting, whether

intentional or not, I am sure no one will object but not criticism!

 

My apologies to all if my sincere post created offense in any mind or soul.

 

Rohiniranjan

 

 

, Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar

wrote:

>

> Dear Suresh ji, Vinay ji,

>

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

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

with a agenda of their own

>

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

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

discussion on such threads.

>

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

groups

>

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

discussed here as well

>

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

TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared

>

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

>

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

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

now.

>

>

> prashant

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag

>

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

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Dear Vinay Jha,

>

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

>

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

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

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

posted it?.

>

> Hope you understand

> A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy

>

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

wrote:

> >

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

> > Bhattacharjya :

> >

> > To Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> >

> > You say:

> >

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

> > that. " >>>

> >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> >

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

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

> >

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

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

> >

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

> > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> >

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

> > ancient texts is again proven here.

> >

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

> > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> >

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

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

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

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

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

> > sutras 17-19.

> >

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

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

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

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

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

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

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

> >

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

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

> > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> >

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

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

> > Upanisha " >>>

> >

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

> >

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

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

> >

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

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

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

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

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

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

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

> >

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

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

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

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

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

> > Saamkhya.

> >

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

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

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

> > students who are now heads of departments.

> >

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

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

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

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

> > going to use your abusive language.

> >

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

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

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

> > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > -VJ

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

> >

> >

> >