Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Dear RR ji, Members, this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. thanks Prashant .. /database?method=reportRows & tbl=6 ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM Cross-posted critiques ...! 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > prashant > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Dear Vinay Jha, > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > Hope you understand > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > You say: > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > that. " >>> > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > sutras 17-19. > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > Saamkhya. > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Dear Kumar ji, Please understand that I was not blaming you in any way, nor the posters either! I was just doing my civic duty, which essentially means: Doing what feels and sounds right and not staying QUIET, but expressing one's mind! Maybe someday more would find the time to care and say and not be afraid to get involved and speak up! " Aashaa shaiyi rongeen kaanch... " , as a poet once said as my father once told/reminded me...! Rohiniranjan , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar wrote: > > Dear RR ji, Members, > > this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it > > that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it > > BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state > > SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM > > ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE > > I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us > > my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. > > thanks > > Prashant > . > /database?method=reportRows & tbl=6 > > > > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM > Cross-posted critiques ...! > > > > > > 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > > > > prashant > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha, > > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > > > Hope you understand > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > > > You say: > > > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > > that. " >>> > > > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > > sutras 17-19. > > > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > > Saamkhya. > > > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 To All, I have said twice that I did not know SKB (Sunil Bhattacharjya) was not a member here, and I posted this message because SKB used to posted his replies to me in other fora where the topic was not being discussed. But now I find I will have to clarify this point thousands of times !!! RR Ji had advised me to keep away from all fora and look towards moksha & SS & c. SKB wants the same, but for another reason. SKB is abusing me for 7 months, and RR Ji or no one else asked him to refrain from personal attacks on me. It is for the first the first time that I have used strobg words about SKB, and RR Ji has made it an issue. Since I did not know SKB was not a member here, I accewpt my mistake of posting this message here. But as for the charge of abusing, I have not abused anyone, I simply complained that a drunkard is needlessly calling me names like " idiot " just because I cited correct citations from texts he was falsely citing. If someone lacks facts and arguments to refute me, should he call me an idiot ?? SKB does not even knows Sanskrit, which I gathered from his faulty citations, yet poses as an expert of indology. if I call SKB a drunkard, it is not an abuse, because he advised me that daily dose of two tolas of wine is good, and he did so in a topic dedicated to Medini jyotisha in spite of my requests not to destroy an astrological topic. Now, I find some persons resolved to blow this message from me out of all proportions so that I should leave this group. It is for the third time that I say that I did not know SKB was not a member here. Will this message be deleted / forgotten, or will it be blown out to get me expelled ??? I still do not want to use strong words for SKB, but I know that unless he is reprimanded by others or by moderators to use parliamentary words in academic debates he will not behave. If RR Ji and others want that I should continue tolerating his abuses, I must point out that personal abuses are nothing to me (which I can prove by reproducing innumerable past messages in which I refused to retort to SKB's abuses), but when someone uses abuses as a policy of proving false viewpoints about astrology and indology, I must use correct and strong terms. If someone cites a text wrongly aiain and again in spite of reminders, it is a case of senility or dishonesty, and if one advertises about wine in an astrological topic that I must call it an advertisement of liquor. I was fully justified, but the forum I posted was wrong, for which I am apologising for third and last time. SKB acknowledges that he is not an astrologer. Some fora, like AIA, prefer to keep non-astrologers like him than an astrologer like me. -VJ ======================= === ________________________________ Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:17:44 AM Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 Dear RR ji, Members, this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. thanks Prashant ... http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow s & tbl=6 ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ hotmail.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM Cross-posted critiques ...! 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > prashant > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Dear Vinay Jha, > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > Hope you understand > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > You say: > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > that. " >>> > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > sutras 17-19. > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > Saamkhya. > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Rohini Da, I know you expressed correct words, but these words would have been better placed had they appeared before I was forced to use strong words for SKB, whom I was calling " Da " and who started calling me names just because I reminded him that his citations from ancient texts was wrong. Intoleration of criticism is another hallmark of SKB which I forgot to mention in previous message. -VJ ====================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:36:56 AM Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 Dear Kumar ji, Please understand that I was not blaming you in any way, nor the posters either! I was just doing my civic duty, which essentially means: Doing what feels and sounds right and not staying QUIET, but expressing one's mind! Maybe someday more would find the time to care and say and not be afraid to get involved and speak up! " Aashaa shaiyi rongeen kaanch... " , as a poet once said as my father once told/reminded me...! Rohiniranjan , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@. ..> wrote: > > Dear RR ji, Members, > > this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it > > that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it > > BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state > > SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM > > ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE > > I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us > > my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. > > thanks > > Prashant > . > http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow s & tbl=6 > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM > Cross-posted critiques ...! > > > > > > 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > > > > prashant > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha, > > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > > > Hope you understand > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > > > You say: > > > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > > that. " >>> > > > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > > sutras 17-19. > > > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > > Saamkhya. > > > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 When you started calling him 'Da' were you sincere? Why exactly did you start calling him " Dada " ? I explained my reasons very succinctly and publicly when I started addressing him as Dada way back when and you can go and look through the archives if you do not believe me! No relationship starts without sacrifice or sincerity, Sir! Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I know you expressed correct words, but these words would have been better placed had they appeared before I was forced to use strong words for SKB, whom I was calling " Da " and who started calling me names just because I reminded him that his citations from ancient texts was wrong. > > Intoleration of criticism is another hallmark of SKB which I forgot to mention in previous message. > > -VJ > > ====================== == > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:36:56 AM > Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 > > > > > > Dear Kumar ji, > > Please understand that I was not blaming you in any way, nor the posters either! > > I was just doing my civic duty, which essentially means: Doing what feels and sounds right and not staying QUIET, but expressing one's mind! > > Maybe someday more would find the time to care and say and not be afraid to get involved and speak up! " Aashaa shaiyi rongeen kaanch... " , as a poet once said as my father once told/reminded me...! > > Rohiniranjan > > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@ ..> wrote: > > > > Dear RR ji, Members, > > > > this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it > > > > that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it > > > > BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state > > > > SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM > > > > ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE > > > > I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us > > > > my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. > > > > thanks > > > > Prashant > > . > > http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow s & tbl=6 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM > > Cross-posted critiques ...! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > > > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > > > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > > > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > > > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > > > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > > > > > > > prashant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha, > > > > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > > > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > > > > > Hope you understand > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > > > > > You say: > > > > > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > > > that. " >>> > > > > > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > > > sutras 17-19. > > > > > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > > > Saamkhya. > > > > > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 RR Ji, I renounced all worldly relations long ago, but as long as I live in this world I have to follow the rules of this world. SKB is much senior to me in age, and I was right in calling him Da. He will remain to be senior, whether I call him Da or not. Now I am convinced that he has Absolute hatred for me just because of my principles. But it does not mean I hate him. There is the same God in him Who is in all of us. When Truth and Shaastras are at stake, relations do not count. In a shaastraartha, seniority on the basis of age must not intervene : it is an old principle mentioned in scriptures. <<< When you started calling him 'Da' were you sincere? >>> Where did you find any proof on my insincerity ?? There are many types of Bhai. You are diverting the point from insincerity of SKB who is citing scriptures falsely, to my supposed insincerity (I am not charging you, please take it positively, as a complaint : if you do not want to say that SKB is citing scriptures falsely, you should have kept away instead of try to find insincerity in me). Since use of " Da " by me is taken as a sign of my insincerity, I am dropping this word from my dictionary for good. but you will remain an elder. -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:10:05 PM Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 When you started calling him 'Da' were you sincere? Why exactly did you start calling him " Dada " ? I explained my reasons very succinctly and publicly when I started addressing him as Dada way back when and you can go and look through the archives if you do not believe me! No relationship starts without sacrifice or sincerity, Sir! Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I know you expressed correct words, but these words would have been better placed had they appeared before I was forced to use strong words for SKB, whom I was calling " Da " and who started calling me names just because I reminded him that his citations from ancient texts was wrong. > > Intoleration of criticism is another hallmark of SKB which I forgot to mention in previous message. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:36:56 AM > Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 > > > > > > Dear Kumar ji, > > Please understand that I was not blaming you in any way, nor the posters either! > > I was just doing my civic duty, which essentially means: Doing what feels and sounds right and not staying QUIET, but expressing one's mind! > > Maybe someday more would find the time to care and say and not be afraid to get involved and speak up! " Aashaa shaiyi rongeen kaanch... " , as a poet once said as my father once told/reminded me...! > > Rohiniranjan > > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@ ..> wrote: > > > > Dear RR ji, Members, > > > > this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it > > > > that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it > > > > BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state > > > > SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM > > > > ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE > > > > I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us > > > > my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. > > > > thanks > > > > Prashant > > . > > http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow s & tbl=6 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM > > Cross-posted critiques ...! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > > > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > > > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > > > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > > > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > > > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > > > > > > > prashant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha, > > > > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > > > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > > > > > Hope you understand > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > > > > > You say: > > > > > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > > > that. " >>> > > > > > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > > > sutras 17-19. > > > > > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > > > Saamkhya. > > > > > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Dear vinay ji, as the threads continued on SKB, U logically i have to allow this to a end so will appear I APPRECIATE THAT U have taken the right stand that u were not aware of SKB not being a member here, that is why i had also ASKED SKB to be part of the group and reply. we have to be fair to everyone esp ones not present here. i don't believe in what others do use fake ID's and bring in cross posts within them abuse others as we see in groups where some banned members do regularly and spoil the image of the group and astrologers MORE sadly. but for lack of time i rarely visit other groups. HERE TOO I APPROVE MODERATED MESSAGES ONCE IN -3 HRS only till date. as i had said when i started moderating this group some days it takes more time today at 7 am i approved few messages next is now. I have given all a equal chance to participate in a healthy manner it is up to them to justify their image in this world moral policing is always not possible, esp with unmoderated members and I have never BANNED ANYONE NOT EVEN MY WORST CRITICS as I will still allow any astrological material from anyone even them, Best wishes Prashant ________________________________ Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:36:00 AM Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 To All, I have said twice that I did not know SKB (Sunil Bhattacharjya) was not a member here, and I posted this message because SKB used to posted his replies to me in other fora where the topic was not being discussed. But now I find I will have to clarify this point thousands of times !!! ////. Since I did not know SKB was not a member here, I accewpt my mistake of posting this message here. But as for the charge of abusing, I have not abused anyone, I simply complained that a drunkard is needlessly calling me names like " idiot " just because I cited correct citations from texts he was falsely citing. If someone lacks facts and arguments to refute me, should he call me an idiot ?? SKB does not even knows Sanskrit, which I gathered from his faulty citations, yet poses as an expert of indology. if I call SKB a drunkard, it is not an abuse, because he advised me that daily dose of two tolas of wine is good, and he did so in a topic dedicated to Medini jyotisha in spite of my requests not to destroy an astrological topic. .....//// . ... the forum I posted was wrong, for which I am apologising for third and last time. SKB acknowledges that he is not an astrologer. Some fora, like AIA, prefer to keepnon-astrologers like him than an astrologer like me. -VJ ============ ========= == === ____________ _________ _________ __ Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:17:44 AM Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 Dear RR ji, Members, this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. thanks Prashant ... http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow s & tbl=6 ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ hotmail.com> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM Cross-posted critiques ...! 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > prashant > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! Dear Vinay Jha, > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > Hope you understand > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > You say: > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > that. " >>> > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > sutras 17-19. > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > Saamkhya. > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Rohini Da, Here is your reasons for calling hin Dada : <<< In that case I shall continue to call him Dada! He excels in areas that are very close to my heart and ambition: Chemistry and Environment and I can tell that he has a sharp mind and has pretty much all that one needs to embrace and uphold astrology! That said, he is human, I am sure because ISPs do not give access to internet accounts without checking one's capability to pay! Just plain and simple pragmatic stuff! And he has an internet account! As do you and I! Simply humans? But does that make any of us less capable of thinking and communicating? >>> I differ from you on one count : I called him Da because he is elder , but you called hin Dada because he excelled in chemistry, environment and astrology. I think you will not call every excellent chemist & c a Dada, age must be a factor, I suppose. I have no proof of his excellence in ANY field, and I have contrary proofs now in many fields like astrology, indology, philosophy, Sanskrit, manners, etc. But he remains an elder. I differ from you on another count : I have a free internet account with unlimited downloads and uploads, [ and people have free accounts with me for astrological consultancy, esp when in distress (provided I have time). ] -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:10:05 PM Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 When you started calling him 'Da' were you sincere? Why exactly did you start calling him " Dada " ? I explained my reasons very succinctly and publicly when I started addressing him as Dada way back when and you can go and look through the archives if you do not believe me! No relationship starts without sacrifice or sincerity, Sir! Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini Da, > > I know you expressed correct words, but these words would have been better placed had they appeared before I was forced to use strong words for SKB, whom I was calling " Da " and who started calling me names just because I reminded him that his citations from ancient texts was wrong. > > Intoleration of criticism is another hallmark of SKB which I forgot to mention in previous message. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:36:56 AM > Re: Cross-posted critiques ...! 15/7 > > > > > > Dear Kumar ji, > > Please understand that I was not blaming you in any way, nor the posters either! > > I was just doing my civic duty, which essentially means: Doing what feels and sounds right and not staying QUIET, but expressing one's mind! > > Maybe someday more would find the time to care and say and not be afraid to get involved and speak up! " Aashaa shaiyi rongeen kaanch... " , as a poet once said as my father once told/reminded me...! > > Rohiniranjan > > , Prashant Kumar G B <gbp_kumar@ ..> wrote: > > > > Dear RR ji, Members, > > > > this was a unmoderated message so has come in not much i could do as many will still get ieir mail box already even if i deletge it from the GROUPS INBOX inst it > > > > that is why i have taken care to say it is cross posted msg and has both sides to it > > > > BUT YES U R RIGHT CRITICISM MUST NOT BE TOLERATED when one is not a member in this group to defend him or herself to that extent I am in total agreement with u and sad that this do happen with less control from anyone in unmoderated state > > > > SO MY APPLEAL TO MEMBERS WILL BE IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN PART OF ANY FEW GROUPS WHERE THE 2 OR OTHER MEMBERS IN QUESTION IS TTHERE PL DO POST THEM > > > > ELSE AVOID SUCH POSTS IN GROUPS WHERE THE OTHER PARTIES R NOT PRESENT PLEASE > > > > I HAVE ALSO APPEALED TO Sunil Bhatacharya to be here and do the needful till then may be restraint is important from all of us > > > > my own replies also dont center on individuals but on the topic that " select frew or blessed can witness the almighty pratyaksha pramana " not all of us so we can't deny it is not present at all. > > > > thanks > > > > Prashant > > . > > http://groups. / group/Jyotish_ Remedies/ database? method=reportRow s & tbl=6 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:09:16 AM > > Cross-posted critiques ...! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/entertainmen t than discussion on such threads. > > > > > > here it is a member who hass been positing on several topics here and other groups > > > > > > except this threads related to sunil bhattacharya ji's posts others have been discussed here as well > > > > > > if he becomes part of this group it MAKES SENSE I've SAID that ALREADY SO UP TO HIM to pursue it here and wherever this has appeared > > > > > > FOR ME IT WAS only a part of the message i replied which has universal appeal > > > > > > that Almight can be seen only by the blessed ones and it is not a matter of debate as we r all too small to even coment on such souls who can see god even now. > > > > > > > > > prashant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > sureshbabuag <sureshbabuag@ ...> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:20:27 PM > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha, > > > > > > Pardon me for saying so, This massage seems to out of tune & context. > > > > > > The so called " Sunil Battacharjya " has not posted any such message here in the forum. It might be a personal message or posted in any other forum. Hence, don't you think it is better to reply in the same way or in the forum he might have posted it?. > > > > > > Hope you understand > > > A.G.Suresh Babu Shenoy > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is my answer to a deliberately false message from Mr Sunil > > > > Bhattacharjya : > > > > > > > > To Sunil Da & To All concerned, > > > > > > > > You say: > > > > > > > > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at > > > > that. " >>> > > > > > > > > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original > > > > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and > > > > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie, > > > > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of > > > > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras > > > > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case > > > > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which > > > > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra > > > > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in > > > > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha > > > > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it : > > > > > > > > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is > > > > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti. > > > > > > > > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and > > > > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions). > > > > > > > > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the > > > > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " . > > > > > > > > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from > > > > ancient texts is again proven here. > > > > > > > > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of > > > > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge : > > > > > > > > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and > > > > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence > > > > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with > > > > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed > > > > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4, > > > > sutras 17-19. > > > > > > > > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out > > > > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet > > > > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not > > > > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial > > > > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is > > > > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes. > > > > > > > > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear. > > > > > > > > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient > > > > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said > > > > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya. > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are > > > > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara > > > > Upanisha " >>> > > > > > > > > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. " > > > > > > > > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ??? > > > > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ? > > > > > > > > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita > > > > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a > > > > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies. > > > > > > > > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has > > > > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks > > > > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack > > > > of regard for truth.only.> >> > > > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see > > > > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject > > > > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul > > > > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely > > > > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to > > > > Saamkhya. > > > > > > > > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a > > > > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no > > > > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my > > > > students who are now heads of departments. > > > > > > > > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just > > > > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient > > > > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to > > > > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not > > > > going to use your abusive language. > > > > > > > > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which > > > > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the > > > > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false > > > > out-of-context misinterpretation. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == == > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.