Guest guest Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 Dear Bharat ji, I disagree. ==> > A discussion takes place when: > 1. I am a learner and a student of yours or you are a learner and > student of mine > 2. Both of us are open to learning, exploring. > 3. If you are a knower of something that I seek or I am a knower of > something that you seek and we ask the knower. <== 1, 3 are the same, and there it is no discussion - but teaching & learning. Discussion takes place only for point -2 you mentioned (but a bit of correction is necessary) - that is why discussion is always between friends. I think - " A discussion takes place when all the people involved are open to learning, exploring, sharing their own knowledge and willing to correct their wrong understandings based on THEIR OWN realization comes from within themselves " (The discussion is just the fire wood and not the fire itself - " Knowledge Comes From Within " and NOT outside) What comes from outside is info - which can be equated to firewood and not fire itself. You told to Kaul that- ==> > You cannot expect us to answer your misplaced contentions, > especially when you have no attitude nor openness for learning. <== Here to I don't agree. The fact could be rather different. I may have a particular mould for taking knowledge, so as you. For example if I am spend my childhood and education in accepting what is told is slokas only as true- even if an true statement is made by someone without providing the quote I may not accept. If I am brought up through a system - where only thinks told by scientists or things printed in books taught on schools are believed (Eg: History) - then I may reject anything if not told by a scientist or not percent in school books. These are extreme examples. If we look at ourselves we can see that we have developed a unique mould for ourselves, for the mode in which we accept the input. That is criterion - good in some situations and bad in others. Every individual has such a mould; and if only the input provided by the other individual tally with the filter I have I may accept it - it happens unconsciously; almost always. It could be that the questions or answers you provided didn't fit with the info filter used by Kaul ji, or that his input never matched with yours - It can happen. Please also notice that info input is important - whether it is from Kaul ji or from Me; it is all info and Knowledge and understanding happen within - within every individual; and there is NO teacher; one himself is the ONLY teacher to himself; it can not be otherwise. Love, Sreenadh , " Bharat Hindu Astrology " <hinduastrology wrote: > > Namaste Sri Kaul > > A discussion takes place when: > > 1. I am a learner and a student of yours or you are a learner and student of > mine > 2. Both of us are open to learning, exploring. > 3. If you are a knower of something that I seek or I am a knower of > something that you seek and we ask the knower. > > You and I do not satisfy any of the criteria. You are pre-decided on most > things. You have not answered close to 20 queries put up by me OR more than > 50 by others. You cannot expect us to answer your misplaced contentions, > especially when you have no attitude nor openness for learning. > > I am not busy for seeking knowledge or for sharing it, but, I would rather > not waste time with another useless debate with you. > > Infact, if you notice, I was not even discussing with you. I was discussing > with Sri Madhu and Sri Sreenadh. > > Thanks and Regards > Bharat > > > > On 6/16/07, Avtar Krishen Kaul <a_krishen wrote: > > > > Shri Bharat ji, > > Namaskar! > > > > First of all I must congratulate Shri Sreemadhji for keeping the > > posts on this forum unmoderated! It needs really an open mind to do > > so! > > Now coming to your points: > > I have never asked anyone to agree with me or even disagree with me, > > for that matter. In a democracy, anybody is at liberty to cherish > > any system for being fleeced by charlatans or fleecing others! I am > > no cop, please rest assured! The problem arises only when we say > > that these gimmicks of predictions are based on the Vedas and have > > been revealed by Rishis like Prashara and Brighu etc. etc. > > Naturally, anybody making such claims will have to substantiate them > > with chapter and verse and not just go on repeating " Jyotish is > > Vedic " , " Jyotish is based on what Maharshi Prashara has said " and so > > on and so forth! > > Kindly go through all the files that I have uploaded on this forum > > and do give a point by point reply. If you take time out to peruse > > them patiently (Koshur6), you will see that I was sailing in the > > same boat as you are sailing today! In other words, I was a more > > stauch " nirayana astrologer " for quite a few years than nyybody > > else! Later on, with equal vehemence, I becamse a firm believer > > in " Sayana Vedic astrology " for several years! Since nobody, > > including the " Vedic jyotishis " themselves, whether sayana or > > nirayana, has as yet been able to pinpoint the existence of Mesha, > > Vrisha etc. astrological rashis, leave alone sayana or nirayana, in > > any of the Vedas or the Vedanga Jyotisha or the Yajur Jyotisha or > > even Atharva Jyotisha, obviously, we have been taken for a ride for > > quite some time by such charlatans as claim that the Vedas talk of > > nothing else but predictive gimmicks! > > It may perhaps be a " revelation " to you that we do not find any > > mention of the much dreaded Mangal and Shani either in any of the > > Vedas or any of the Vedic astronomical works! I wonder whether you > > know that except for Maya the mlechha's Surya Sidhanta, no other > > sidhanta of even the Panchasidhantika refers to any Rashis or > > Mangal, Shani etc. planets even by mistake! To crown it all, the > > Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika is the most inaccurate > > astronomical work that could have been produced by anybody! > > Ironically, Varahamihira found that very Surya Sidhanta to be the > > most accurate - spashta taro savitrah! Varahamhira is supposed to > > have been the greatest Indian astrologer of all times! Naturally, > > if someone can make correct predictions from incorrect data, he > > certainly is a charlatan than anything else! Thus you can say > > that " Varahamihira was the greatest charlatan of Indian astrology of > > all times " . There was a genetleman in twentieth century also who > > could make coorect predictions about " notable horoscopes " with > > incorrect data. He was also known as the greatest Vedic astrologer > > of the twentieth century! That much for Indian astrology! > > Dhanyavad. > > --- In <%40.\ com>, > > " Bharat Hindu > > Astrology " <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Sri Sreenadh > > > > > > Forcing a concept down the throat is not the way of a Scholar. Nor > > does a > > > Scholar is one who has such a closed mind, who cannot accept that > > views > > > other than his own can exist. There a vast difference between a > > true scholar > > > who pursues knowledge knowing that Ignorance is so vast that he > > better be > > > humble. > > > > > > By giving useless logic and wrong translations and without > > answering any > > > queries, one does not become a Scholar. > > > > > > I reserve my judgment about this person and his " lookalikes " > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > Bharat > > > > > > On 6/15/07, Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat ji, > > > > " Sri Kaul and his belief system " => That is cute terminology. > > > > ==> > > > > > He uses sarcasm and calls names to those who does not agree to > > his > > > > > thinking. > > > > <== > > > > That is not good - if he does so. > > > > ==> > > > > > He is trying to force his way around in proving all > > > > > others are wrong. > > > > <== > > > > That is quite natural for a scholar - and he is I assure. > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. > > > > <== > > > > Are they two different characters; or just another id of Kaul > > itself? > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > > stay > > > > > and enjoy their mostly baseless contentions. > > > > <== > > > > > > > > I agree to the first statement and stand by the same. But would > > > > disagree to the second, since Kaul's arguments also has some > > > > supportive evidence, like a person seeing a 2 colored kite from > > only > > > > one side. The truth is both Sayana and Nirayana system existed in > > > > Vedic period, and also that Nirayana system of astrology is more > > of > > > > Tantric origin than of Vedic. But let us not fight over > > terminology > > > > but rather search the fruits of it, so that it would be of some > > use > > > > to us. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > --- In > > <%40.\ com> > > <% > > 40>, > > > > " Bharat Hindu > > > > Astrology " <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Madhu > > > > > > > > > > I have had discussions with Sri Kaul and his belief system. I > > did > > > > not agree > > > > > to it and still call Vedic Astrology as Vedic only. He uses > > sarcasm > > > > and > > > > > calls names to those who does not agree to his thinking. He is > > > > trying to > > > > > force his way around in proving all others are wrong. He has > > done > > > > so in > > > > > various lists. In fact, Sri Windhall wrote an excellent reply > > to his > > > > > contentions, to which he did not reply. > > > > > > > > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. There is no point > > > > discussing > > > > > things with them. They are no one to determine whether > > Astrology is > > > > Vedic or > > > > > not. I am born to the culture and shall call it Vedic, > > including > > > > astrology. > > > > > > > > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > > stay > > > > and enjoy > > > > > their mostly baseless contentions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > On 6/15/07, Balagurusurya <balagurusurya@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh , > > > > > > When I wrote a reply to Kishen Kaul,I meant No offence to > > him. > > > > > > I just suggested to verify the meaning of " Parashara " with > > a > > > > > > learned Sanskrit scholar, since I understand that one meaning > > > > > > attributed to " Parashara' is " The Liberated one " , that > > means , > > > > > > Parashara can never be a single person & BPHS may be a > > > > contribution > > > > > > of several realised souls . > > > > > > Unfortunately , he was finding fault with my English. I could > > > > > > clearly make out his sarcastic note of my English. > > > > > > I was under the presumption that the list was meant for > > learning > > > > > > Jyotish. Now I realise it is for learning flowery English > > > > Language. I > > > > > > know Kishen Kaul and his known hostility to Nirayana > > Zodiac .If I > > > > > > recollect correctly, VSK reviewed his ephemeris, years back . > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I am sure , as Mohan or in some other alias he will > > > > return to > > > > > > vent his spite. I don't have the Time to fight neither I > > wish to > > > > > > be the target of someone in nomdeplume . > > > > > > > > > > > > Once I left your list but returned ,as desired by you, Kumar > > and > > > > > > some other members who are my friends. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to be a disruptive influence in your list . > > > > > > I am sure the list will progress to new horizon ,under your > > able > > > > > > guidance > > > > > > All the Best > > > > > > Signing off > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2007 Report Share Posted June 17, 2007 Namaste SreenadhPoint 1 and Point 3 are not the same. In point 1, one takes the other as one's teacher. The acceptance of one's teacher makes the difference. And that is a huge difference. Discussions take place between all three and not only amongst friends. Most of our scriptures are in question/answer form and discussion form. My own interactions with my various Gurus have been through discourse, question/answer and discussions. Therefore, I disagree to your contentions. When we see the teacher is within, we are pointing to Atman to be our teacher. Atman or Brahman that is Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam is all knowing and all pervasive. It is therefore, the true teacher. Since the same Atman's expression is the object outside, the same can be treated as a Guru. Hence, you need not disagree to my statements. You cannot expect us to answer your misplaced contentions, > especially when you have no attitude nor openness for learning.What is being said here is - that to a person who has already concluded there isn't a discussion. It is a debate. I do not wish to engage in this debate since all signs point to an already decided mind. To me, it is a useless exercise. Perhaps you think otherwise, and can debate all you wish. Thanks and RegardsBharatOn 6/17/07, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Dear Bharat ji, I disagree. ==> > A discussion takes place when: > 1. I am a learner and a student of yours or you are a learner and > student of mine > 2. Both of us are open to learning, exploring. > 3. If you are a knower of something that I seek or I am a knower of > something that you seek and we ask the knower. <== 1, 3 are the same, and there it is no discussion - but teaching & learning. Discussion takes place only for point -2 you mentioned (but a bit of correction is necessary) - that is why discussion is always between friends. I think - " A discussion takes place when all the people involved are open to learning, exploring, sharing their own knowledge and willing to correct their wrong understandings based on THEIR OWN realization comes from within themselves " (The discussion is just the fire wood and not the fire itself - " Knowledge Comes From Within " and NOT outside) What comes from outside is info - which can be equated to firewood and not fire itself. You told to Kaul that- ==> > You cannot expect us to answer your misplaced contentions, > especially when you have no attitude nor openness for learning. <== Here to I don't agree. The fact could be rather different. I may have a particular mould for taking knowledge, so as you. For example if I am spend my childhood and education in accepting what is told is slokas only as true- even if an true statement is made by someone without providing the quote I may not accept. If I am brought up through a system - where only thinks told by scientists or things printed in books taught on schools are believed (Eg: History) - then I may reject anything if not told by a scientist or not percent in school books. These are extreme examples. If we look at ourselves we can see that we have developed a unique mould for ourselves, for the mode in which we accept the input. That is criterion - good in some situations and bad in others. Every individual has such a mould; and if only the input provided by the other individual tally with the filter I have I may accept it - it happens unconsciously; almost always. It could be that the questions or answers you provided didn't fit with the info filter used by Kaul ji, or that his input never matched with yours - It can happen. Please also notice that info input is important - whether it is from Kaul ji or from Me; it is all info and Knowledge and understanding happen within - within every individual; and there is NO teacher; one himself is the ONLY teacher to himself; it can not be otherwise. Love, Sreenadh , " Bharat Hindu Astrology " <hinduastrology wrote: > > Namaste Sri Kaul > > A discussion takes place when: > > 1. I am a learner and a student of yours or you are a learner and student of > mine > 2. Both of us are open to learning, exploring. > 3. If you are a knower of something that I seek or I am a knower of > something that you seek and we ask the knower. > > You and I do not satisfy any of the criteria. You are pre-decided on most > things. You have not answered close to 20 queries put up by me OR more than > 50 by others. You cannot expect us to answer your misplaced contentions, > especially when you have no attitude nor openness for learning. > > I am not busy for seeking knowledge or for sharing it, but, I would rather > not waste time with another useless debate with you. > > Infact, if you notice, I was not even discussing with you. I was discussing > with Sri Madhu and Sri Sreenadh. > > Thanks and Regards > Bharat > > > > On 6/16/07, Avtar Krishen Kaul <a_krishen wrote: > > > > Shri Bharat ji, > > Namaskar! > > > > First of all I must congratulate Shri Sreemadhji for keeping the > > posts on this forum unmoderated! It needs really an open mind to do > > so! > > Now coming to your points: > > I have never asked anyone to agree with me or even disagree with me, > > for that matter. In a democracy, anybody is at liberty to cherish > > any system for being fleeced by charlatans or fleecing others! I am > > no cop, please rest assured! The problem arises only when we say > > that these gimmicks of predictions are based on the Vedas and have > > been revealed by Rishis like Prashara and Brighu etc. etc. > > Naturally, anybody making such claims will have to substantiate them > > with chapter and verse and not just go on repeating " Jyotish is > > Vedic " , " Jyotish is based on what Maharshi Prashara has said " and so > > on and so forth! > > Kindly go through all the files that I have uploaded on this forum > > and do give a point by point reply. If you take time out to peruse > > them patiently (Koshur6), you will see that I was sailing in the > > same boat as you are sailing today! In other words, I was a more > > stauch " nirayana astrologer " for quite a few years than nyybody > > else! Later on, with equal vehemence, I becamse a firm believer > > in " Sayana Vedic astrology " for several years! Since nobody, > > including the " Vedic jyotishis " themselves, whether sayana or > > nirayana, has as yet been able to pinpoint the existence of Mesha, > > Vrisha etc. astrological rashis, leave alone sayana or nirayana, in > > any of the Vedas or the Vedanga Jyotisha or the Yajur Jyotisha or > > even Atharva Jyotisha, obviously, we have been taken for a ride for > > quite some time by such charlatans as claim that the Vedas talk of > > nothing else but predictive gimmicks! > > It may perhaps be a " revelation " to you that we do not find any > > mention of the much dreaded Mangal and Shani either in any of the > > Vedas or any of the Vedic astronomical works! I wonder whether you > > know that except for Maya the mlechha's Surya Sidhanta, no other > > sidhanta of even the Panchasidhantika refers to any Rashis or > > Mangal, Shani etc. planets even by mistake! To crown it all, the > > Surya Sidhanta of Panchasidhantika is the most inaccurate > > astronomical work that could have been produced by anybody! > > Ironically, Varahamihira found that very Surya Sidhanta to be the > > most accurate - spashta taro savitrah! Varahamhira is supposed to > > have been the greatest Indian astrologer of all times! Naturally, > > if someone can make correct predictions from incorrect data, he > > certainly is a charlatan than anything else! Thus you can say > > that " Varahamihira was the greatest charlatan of Indian astrology of > > all times " . There was a genetleman in twentieth century also who > > could make coorect predictions about " notable horoscopes " with > > incorrect data. He was also known as the greatest Vedic astrologer > > of the twentieth century! That much for Indian astrology! > > Dhanyavad. > > --- In <%40>, > > " Bharat Hindu > > Astrology " <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Sri Sreenadh > > > > > > Forcing a concept down the throat is not the way of a Scholar. Nor > > does a > > > Scholar is one who has such a closed mind, who cannot accept that > > views > > > other than his own can exist. There a vast difference between a > > true scholar > > > who pursues knowledge knowing that Ignorance is so vast that he > > better be > > > humble. > > > > > > By giving useless logic and wrong translations and without > > answering any > > > queries, one does not become a Scholar. > > > > > > I reserve my judgment about this person and his " lookalikes " > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > Bharat > > > > > > On 6/15/07, Sreenadh <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bharat ji, > > > > " Sri Kaul and his belief system " => That is cute terminology. > > > > ==> > > > > > He uses sarcasm and calls names to those who does not agree to > > his > > > > > thinking. > > > > <== > > > > That is not good - if he does so. > > > > ==> > > > > > He is trying to force his way around in proving all > > > > > others are wrong. > > > > <== > > > > That is quite natural for a scholar - and he is I assure. > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. > > > > <== > > > > Are they two different characters; or just another id of Kaul > > itself? > > > > > > > > ==> > > > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > > stay > > > > > and enjoy their mostly baseless contentions. > > > > <== > > > > > > > > I agree to the first statement and stand by the same. But would > > > > disagree to the second, since Kaul's arguments also has some > > > > supportive evidence, like a person seeing a 2 colored kite from > > only > > > > one side. The truth is both Sayana and Nirayana system existed in > > > > Vedic period, and also that Nirayana system of astrology is more > > of > > > > Tantric origin than of Vedic. But let us not fight over > > terminology > > > > but rather search the fruits of it, so that it would be of some > > use > > > > to us. > > > > Love, > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > --- In > > <%40> > > <% > > 40>, > > > > " Bharat Hindu > > > > Astrology " <hinduastrology@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Sri Madhu > > > > > > > > > > I have had discussions with Sri Kaul and his belief system. I > > did > > > > not agree > > > > > to it and still call Vedic Astrology as Vedic only. He uses > > sarcasm > > > > and > > > > > calls names to those who does not agree to his thinking. He is > > > > trying to > > > > > force his way around in proving all others are wrong. He has > > done > > > > so in > > > > > various lists. In fact, Sri Windhall wrote an excellent reply > > to his > > > > > contentions, to which he did not reply. > > > > > > > > > > Another such a character is Mohan Jyotishi. There is no point > > > > discussing > > > > > things with them. They are no one to determine whether > > Astrology is > > > > Vedic or > > > > > not. I am born to the culture and shall call it Vedic, > > including > > > > astrology. > > > > > > > > > > You need not leave group and help serve their purpose. Rather > > stay > > > > and enjoy > > > > > their mostly baseless contentions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > > > > > On 6/15/07, Balagurusurya <balagurusurya@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh , > > > > > > When I wrote a reply to Kishen Kaul,I meant No offence to > > him. > > > > > > I just suggested to verify the meaning of " Parashara " with > > a > > > > > > learned Sanskrit scholar, since I understand that one meaning > > > > > > attributed to " Parashara' is " The Liberated one " , that > > means , > > > > > > Parashara can never be a single person & BPHS may be a > > > > contribution > > > > > > of several realised souls . > > > > > > Unfortunately , he was finding fault with my English. I could > > > > > > clearly make out his sarcastic note of my English. > > > > > > I was under the presumption that the list was meant for > > learning > > > > > > Jyotish. Now I realise it is for learning flowery English > > > > Language. I > > > > > > know Kishen Kaul and his known hostility to Nirayana > > Zodiac .If I > > > > > > recollect correctly, VSK reviewed his ephemeris, years back . > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I am sure , as Mohan or in some other alias he will > > > > return to > > > > > > vent his spite. I don't have the Time to fight neither I > > wish to > > > > > > be the target of someone in nomdeplume . > > > > > > > > > > > > Once I left your list but returned ,as desired by you, Kumar > > and > > > > > > some other members who are my friends. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to be a disruptive influence in your list . > > > > > > I am sure the list will progress to new horizon ,under your > > able > > > > > > guidance > > > > > > All the Best > > > > > > Signing off > > > > > > > > > > > > Madhu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.