Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

[Guest guest]

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

 

======================= ==

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Vinay,

>

> Please do not make vague statements.

>

> 1)

>

> Quote

>

>

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

him

> or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

actually

> not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> philosophy.

>

> Unquote

>

> Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

a serious scholar will make.

>

> 2)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

the

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> of later scholars.

>

> Unquote

>

> You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

latter a special purusha.

>

> Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

on

> that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

>

> 3)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

Saamkhya

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

Soul.

> since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> theistic philosophies.

>

> Unquote

>

> Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

>

> 4)

>

> Quote

>

>

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

Veda

> for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

of

> principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

>

> Unquote

>

> Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

about these big subjects.

>

> 5)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

Brahmasutra

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

this

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> only One is in Many.

>

> Unquote

>

> Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

>

> 6)

>

> Quote

>

>

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

following statements

>

> Unquote

>

> Yes an ignorant person will say so:

>

> 7)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

his

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

the

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

Ajna

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

meaning

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

not

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

>

> Unquote

>

> These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

Upanishad.

>

> 8)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

by

> means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

One

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

that

> he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

sanyaasa,

> but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

>

> Unquote

>

> Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

>

> 9)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

in

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

not

> a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

>

>

>

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

>

> Unquote

>

> As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

sex so often that it borders on prversity.

>

> 10)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

not

> given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

>

>

>

> Chapter Verse

>

>

>

> 2 : 39

>

> 3 : 3

>

> 5 : 3, 4

>

> 13 : 24

>

> 18 : 13

>

>

>

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

>

>

>

> Chapter Verse

>

>

>

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

>

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

>

> 9 : 28

>

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

>

>

>

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

samskaara.

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

>

> Unquote

>

> It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

took his decision.

>

> 11)

>

> Quote

>

>

>

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

brahmacharya

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

with

> the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

not

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

still

> say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

grihasthas.

>

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

is

> totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

>

> Unquote

>

> One wqho says that thewre 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.

>

>

>

> -SKB

>

>

>

>

> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

> Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

To All,

>

>

>

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

philosophy.

>

>

>

> <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

at that. " >>>

>

>

>

> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

" Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

scholars.

>

>

>

> <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

" Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

>

>

>

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

philosophies.

>

>

>

> <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

>

>

>

> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

(spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

proper charater and mindset.

>

>

>

> Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

only One is in Many.

>

>

>

> Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

following statements :

>

>

>

> <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

>

>

>

> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

srmon at Kuruksetra !!

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

(ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

>

>

>

> <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

>

>

>

> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

>

>

>

> <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

sanyashi " >>>

>

>

>

> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

>

>

>

> <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

" >>>

>

>

>

> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

(libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

>

>

>

> Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

>

>

>

> Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

>

>

>

> Chapter Verse

>

>

>

> 2 : 39

>

> 3 : 3

>

> 5 : 3, 4

>

> 13 : 24

>

> 18 : 13

>

>

>

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

>

>

>

> Chapter Verse

>

>

>

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

>

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

>

> 9 : 28

>

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

>

>

>

> I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

>

>

>

> <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

>

>

>

> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

" Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

>

> Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

watching TV shows of five star gurus.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

>

>

>

> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

>

>

> Dear friends,

>

>

>

> Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

>

>

>

> It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

>

>

>

> Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

>

> and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

>

>

>

> <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

>

>

>

> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

>

>

>

> Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

iceberg.

>

>

>

> I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

>

>

>

> Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

is relative to the observer " .

>

>

>

> No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

>

>

>

> Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

should learn it properly.

>

>

>

> I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

>

>

>

> I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

>

>

>

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

>

>

>

> I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

clarify this point.

>

>

>

> My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

>

>

>

> Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

HOME,.where is this paralok?

>

>

>

> I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

agree with me with the details.

>

>

>

> I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

> Hari Malla

>

>

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Dear Vinay,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Good write-up.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > A few clarifications please.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > 1)

>

>

>

> > Quote

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

not

>

>

>

> > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

term

>

>

>

> > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

>

>

>

> > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

>

>

>

> > vadanti " .

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Unquote

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > 2)

>

>

>

> > Quote

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

>

>

>

> > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

>

>

>

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Unquote

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Are these your own computations?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > 3)

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

was known to the modern science

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Best wishes,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > SKB

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

>

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Malla Ji,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

and Matter and all other material properties.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

bhootas.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

scientific terms?>>>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

" ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

>

>

>

> > supercomputer

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

socalled intelligence.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

after one !!

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > -VJ

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Dear Vinayji,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

the the witnessed.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

observed)?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

terms?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Regards,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > ..

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

Excellent!!

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > Best regards,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > Rohiniranjan

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

Material World.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

its Creator.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the nakshatras

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Dear sirs,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Regards,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Hari Malla

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > Hmmm...!

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

third side of this strange coin.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > Universe,

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > > JR

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Jhaaji,

If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on arguing

that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our scientific

phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of the

pinnacle,or the finale.

Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of vedanta

goes to vasistha.

Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what Patanjali

says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite the knowable

becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

Hari Malla

 

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

>

> 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

>

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

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote:

> >

> > Vinay,

> >

> > Please do not make vague statements.

> >

> > 1)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> him

> > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> actually

> > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > philosophy.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> a serious scholar will make.

> >

> > 2)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> the

> > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > of later scholars.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> latter a special purusha.

> >

> > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> on

> > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> >

> > 3)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> Saamkhya

> > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> Soul.

> > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > theistic philosophies.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> >

> > 4)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> Veda

> > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> of

> > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> about these big subjects.

> >

> > 5)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> Brahmasutra

> > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> this

> > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > only One is in Many.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> >

> > 6)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> following statements

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> >

> > 7)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> his

> > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> the

> > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> Ajna

> > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> meaning

> > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> not

> > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> Upanishad.

> >

> > 8)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> by

> > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> One

> > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> that

> > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> sanyaasa,

> > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> >

> > 9)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> in

> > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> not

> > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> >

> >

> >

> > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> >

> > 10)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> not

> > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 2 : 39

> >

> > 3 : 3

> >

> > 5 : 3, 4

> >

> > 13 : 24

> >

> > 18 : 13

> >

> >

> >

> > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> >

> > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> >

> > 9 : 28

> >

> > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> >

> >

> >

> > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> samskaara.

> > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> took his decision.

> >

> > 11)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> brahmacharya

> > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> with

> > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> not

> > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> still

> > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> grihasthas.

> >

> > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> is

> > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> >

> >

> >

> > -SKB

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To All,

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> philosophy.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> at that. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> scholars.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> philosophies.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> proper charater and mindset.

> >

> >

> >

> > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> only One is in Many.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> following statements :

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> sanyashi " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> >

> >

> >

> > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> >

> >

> >

> > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 2 : 39

> >

> > 3 : 3

> >

> > 5 : 3, 4

> >

> > 13 : 24

> >

> > 18 : 13

> >

> >

> >

> > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> >

> > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> >

> > 9 : 28

> >

> > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> >

> >

> >

> > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> >

> > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> >

> >

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> >

> >

> >

> > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear friends,

> >

> >

> >

> > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> >

> >

> >

> > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> >

> >

> >

> > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> >

> > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> iceberg.

> >

> >

> >

> > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> >

> >

> >

> > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> is relative to the observer " .

> >

> >

> >

> > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> >

> >

> >

> > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> should learn it properly.

> >

> >

> >

> > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> >

> >

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> >

> >

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> >

> >

> >

> > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> clarify this point.

> >

> >

> >

> > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> HOME,.where is this paralok?

> >

> >

> >

> > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> agree with me with the details.

> >

> >

> >

> > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> >

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > Hari Malla

> >

> >

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Good write-up.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > A few clarifications please.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> not

> >

> >

> >

> > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> term

> >

> >

> >

> > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> >

> >

> >

> > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> >

> >

> >

> > > vadanti " .

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> >

> >

> >

> > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> >

> >

> >

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Are these your own computations?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> was known to the modern science

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Best wishes,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > SKB

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> >

> >

> >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Malla Ji,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> and Matter and all other material properties.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> bhootas.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> scientific terms?>>>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> >

> >

> >

> > > supercomputer

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> socalled intelligence.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> after one !!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > -VJ

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Dear Vinayji,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> the the witnessed.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> observed)?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> terms?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Hari Malla

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > ..

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> Excellent!!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > Best regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > Rohiniranjan

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> Material World.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> its Creator.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Dear sirs,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > Hmmm...!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> third side of this strange coin.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Universe,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > JR

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Malla Ji,

 

Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

 

I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which you

are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

 

-VJ

 

======================= ==

 

 

________________________________

" harimalla " <harimalla

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Jhaaji,

If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on arguing

that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our scientific

phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of the

pinnacle,or the finale.

Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of vedanta

goes to vasistha.

Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what Patanjali

says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite the knowable

becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

Hari Malla

 

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> 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

>

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

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> >

> > Vinay,

> >

> > Please do not make vague statements.

> >

> > 1)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> him

> > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> actually

> > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > philosophy.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> a serious scholar will make.

> >

> > 2)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> the

> > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > of later scholars.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> latter a special purusha.

> >

> > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> on

> > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> >

> > 3)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> Saamkhya

> > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> Soul.

> > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > theistic philosophies.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> >

> > 4)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> Veda

> > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> of

> > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> about these big subjects.

> >

> > 5)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> Brahmasutra

> > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> this

> > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > only One is in Many.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> >

> > 6)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> following statements

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> >

> > 7)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> his

> > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> the

> > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> Ajna

> > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> meaning

> > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> not

> > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> Upanishad.

> >

> > 8)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> by

> > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> One

> > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> that

> > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> sanyaasa,

> > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> >

> > 9)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> in

> > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> not

> > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> >

> >

> >

> > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> >

> > 10)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> not

> > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 2 : 39

> >

> > 3 : 3

> >

> > 5 : 3, 4

> >

> > 13 : 24

> >

> > 18 : 13

> >

> >

> >

> > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> >

> > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> >

> > 9 : 28

> >

> > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> >

> >

> >

> > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> samskaara.

> > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> took his decision.

> >

> > 11)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> brahmacharya

> > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> with

> > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> not

> > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> still

> > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> grihasthas.

> >

> > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> is

> > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> >

> >

> >

> > -SKB

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To All,

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> philosophy.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> at that. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> scholars.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> philosophies.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> proper charater and mindset.

> >

> >

> >

> > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> only One is in Many.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> following statements :

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> sanyashi " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> >

> >

> >

> > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> >

> >

> >

> > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 2 : 39

> >

> > 3 : 3

> >

> > 5 : 3, 4

> >

> > 13 : 24

> >

> > 18 : 13

> >

> >

> >

> > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> >

> >

> >

> > Chapter Verse

> >

> >

> >

> > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> >

> > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> >

> > 9 : 28

> >

> > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> >

> >

> >

> > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> >

> > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> >

> >

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> >

> >

> > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear friends,

> >

> >

> >

> > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> >

> >

> >

> > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> >

> >

> >

> > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> >

> > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> >

> >

> >

> > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> iceberg.

> >

> >

> >

> > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> >

> >

> >

> > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> is relative to the observer " .

> >

> >

> >

> > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> >

> >

> >

> > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> should learn it properly.

> >

> >

> >

> > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> >

> >

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> >

> >

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> >

> >

> >

> > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> clarify this point.

> >

> >

> >

> > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> HOME,.where is this paralok?

> >

> >

> >

> > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> agree with me with the details.

> >

> >

> >

> > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> >

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > Hari Malla

> >

> >

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Good write-up.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > A few clarifications please.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> not

> >

> >

> >

> > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> term

> >

> >

> >

> > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> >

> >

> >

> > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> >

> >

> >

> > > vadanti " .

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> >

> >

> >

> > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> >

> >

> >

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Are these your own computations?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> was known to the modern science

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Best wishes,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > SKB

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> >

> >

> >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Malla Ji,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> and Matter and all other material properties.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> bhootas.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> scientific terms?>>>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> >

> >

> >

> > > supercomputer

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> socalled intelligence.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> after one !!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > -VJ

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Dear Vinayji,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> the the witnessed.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> observed)?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> terms?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Hari Malla

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > ..

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> Excellent!!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > Best regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > Rohiniranjan

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> Material World.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> its Creator.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the nakshatras

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Dear sirs,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > Hmmm...!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> third side of this strange coin.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > Universe,

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > > JR

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Jhaaji,

Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda's translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search for

that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha,you will deny even

when you are convinced.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Malla Ji,

>

> Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

>

> I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which

you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

>

> ________________________________

> " harimalla " <harimalla

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

> If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on arguing

that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our scientific

phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of the

pinnacle,or the finale.

> Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of vedanta

goes to vasistha.

> Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> Hari Malla

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > 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

> >

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

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay,

> > >

> > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > >

> > > 1)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > him

> > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > actually

> > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > philosophy.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > a serious scholar will make.

> > >

> > > 2)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > the

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > of later scholars.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > latter a special purusha.

> > >

> > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > on

> > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > >

> > > 3)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > Saamkhya

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > Soul.

> > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > theistic philosophies.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > >

> > > 4)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > Veda

> > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > of

> > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > about these big subjects.

> > >

> > > 5)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > Brahmasutra

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > this

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > only One is in Many.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > >

> > > 6)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > following statements

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > >

> > > 7)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > his

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > the

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > Ajna

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > meaning

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > not

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > Upanishad.

> > >

> > > 8)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > by

> > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > One

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > that

> > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > sanyaasa,

> > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > >

> > > 9)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > in

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > not

> > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > >

> > > 10)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > not

> > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 2 : 39

> > >

> > > 3 : 3

> > >

> > > 5 : 3, 4

> > >

> > > 13 : 24

> > >

> > > 18 : 13

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > >

> > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > >

> > > 9 : 28

> > >

> > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > samskaara.

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > took his decision.

> > >

> > > 11)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > brahmacharya

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > with

> > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > not

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > still

> > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > grihasthas.

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > is

> > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -SKB

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To All,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > philosophy.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > at that. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > scholars.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > philosophies.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > proper charater and mindset.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > only One is in Many.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > following statements :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > sanyashi " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 2 : 39

> > >

> > > 3 : 3

> > >

> > > 5 : 3, 4

> > >

> > > 13 : 24

> > >

> > > 18 : 13

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > >

> > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > >

> > > 9 : 28

> > >

> > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear friends,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > >

> > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > iceberg.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > is relative to the observer " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > should learn it properly.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > clarify this point.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > agree with me with the details.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Good write-up.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > A few clarifications please.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > 1)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > not

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > term

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > vadanti " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > 2)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Are these your own computations?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > 3)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > was known to the modern science

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > SKB

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Malla Ji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > bhootas.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > scientific terms?>>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > supercomputer

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > socalled intelligence.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > after one !!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > -VJ

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > the the witnessed.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > observed)?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > terms?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > ..

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > Excellent!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > Material World.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > its Creator.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > third side of this strange coin.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Universe,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > JR

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Mr Malla,

 

This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in astrology.

 

You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your slippery nature " ) and

('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are

convinced " ).

 

Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you ought to have provided

some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery nature " ? SKB cites texts

falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips to citing other texts falsely, but

he is not slippery and sdishonest for you !! He takes a daily dose of two tolas

of wine before discussiong Dharmashaastras. He will be a good company for you,

excuse me. Why are you showering your omniscience on a slippery and dishonest

fool like me ?

 

I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika persons, who do not

try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should find a proper label for the

persons who are always on the look out for some monk to abuse and attack, I do

not want to use foul words. I have too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to

the worthy. For you, these things are means of passing your idle time. For me,

saamkhya and yoga are more valuable than the whole world.

 

Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable

becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming omniscient. I am neither an

omniscient nor I want to become one.

 

Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you would have used civilised

language. Then, my answer would have been different.

 

Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out over two decades ago

with my active assisstance by others. I now how to cite texts and how to deduce

meanings.

 

Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try to learn the basics :

yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be discussed with drunkards (not

you).

 

-VJ

======================= ==

 

 

________________________________

" harimalla " <harimalla

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Jhaaji,

Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda' s translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search for

that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even

when you are convinced.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Malla Ji,

>

> Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

>

> I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which

you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..>

>

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

> If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on arguing

that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our scientific

phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of the

pinnacle,or the finale.

> Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of vedanta

goes to vasistha.

> Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> Hari Malla

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > 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

> >

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

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay,

> > >

> > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > >

> > > 1)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > him

> > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > actually

> > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > philosophy.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > a serious scholar will make.

> > >

> > > 2)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > the

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > of later scholars.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > latter a special purusha.

> > >

> > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > on

> > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > >

> > > 3)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > Saamkhya

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > Soul.

> > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > theistic philosophies.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > >

> > > 4)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > Veda

> > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > of

> > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > about these big subjects.

> > >

> > > 5)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > Brahmasutra

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > this

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > only One is in Many.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > >

> > > 6)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > following statements

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > >

> > > 7)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > his

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > the

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > Ajna

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > meaning

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > not

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > Upanishad.

> > >

> > > 8)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > by

> > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > One

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > that

> > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > sanyaasa,

> > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > >

> > > 9)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > in

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > not

> > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > >

> > > 10)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > not

> > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 2 : 39

> > >

> > > 3 : 3

> > >

> > > 5 : 3, 4

> > >

> > > 13 : 24

> > >

> > > 18 : 13

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > >

> > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > >

> > > 9 : 28

> > >

> > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > samskaara.

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > took his decision.

> > >

> > > 11)

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > brahmacharya

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > with

> > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > not

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > still

> > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > grihasthas.

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > is

> > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -SKB

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To All,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > philosophy.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > at that. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > scholars.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > philosophies.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > proper charater and mindset.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > only One is in Many.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > following statements :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > sanyashi " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 2 : 39

> > >

> > > 3 : 3

> > >

> > > 5 : 3, 4

> > >

> > > 13 : 24

> > >

> > > 18 : 13

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter Verse

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > >

> > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > >

> > > 9 : 28

> > >

> > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > >

> > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear friends,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > >

> > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > iceberg.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > is relative to the observer " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > should learn it properly.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > clarify this point.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > agree with me with the details.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Good write-up.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > A few clarifications please.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > 1)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > not

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > term

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > vadanti " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > 2)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Are these your own computations?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > 3)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > was known to the modern science

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > SKB

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Malla Ji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > bhootas.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > scientific terms?>>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > supercomputer

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > socalled intelligence.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > after one !!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > -VJ

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > the the witnessed.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > observed)?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > terms?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > ..

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > Excellent!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > Material World.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > its Creator.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > the nakshatras

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > third side of this strange coin.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > Universe,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > > JR

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Jhaaji,

I marvel at the amount of knowledge you have.Sometimes I think because you know

too much, you have no time to digest and summarise them all.So prhaps knowing

less may also be beneficial sometimes.

Sorry for my attributing characteristics of which you have no such intentions

to have.I may be wrong.So forgive me.

But Vivekananda is a man of great repute.He has said what I have mentioned.Kapil

muni is also described as the son of Deevahuti in Bhagvat purana.This version of

Kapil muni seems to be different, since here he is more of a devotee praising

God rather than a man of gyan (knowledge), who is often said to be atheistic.I

have heard Prabhupada say the two are different.

But let me say directly what I wanted to say.

My intention is that a person may have gyan or infinite knowledge but he may be

still a dwait-bad.This is clarified by the sloka of yoga sutra which you think

is my short cut to knowledge.Since, 'when knowledge becomes infinite prakriti is

still there in a small form', purush and prakriti are still existing in two

different forms even to a gyani.This was my intention. Thus a person full of

gyan, as Shri Krishna mentions in the Gita praising samkhya, may still think the

knower and the known are different things, although the known has become very

small for him.A person who has overome maya may not say that he and maya are the

same, as we find adwatin like Adi-Shankaracharya mention of the sameness of the

rope and the serpent.

I hope you agree with me.

About shri Bhattacharjyaji's claim that a divya varsha is one solar year,I think

he may have meant divya din, and 'varsha' may have slippped from his mouth.This

is not so important that we have to pursue the matter so thoroughly.But when I

say there is no cycle of 360 years and it is only symbolic, one ought to think

seriously.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Mr Malla,

>

> This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in astrology.

>

> You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your slippery nature " )

and ('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are

convinced " ).

>

> Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you ought to have provided

some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery nature " ? SKB cites texts

falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips to citing other texts falsely, but

he is not slippery and sdishonest for you !! He takes a daily dose of two tolas

of wine before discussiong Dharmashaastras. He will be a good company for you,

excuse me. Why are you showering your omniscience on a slippery and dishonest

fool like me ?

>

> I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika persons, who do not

try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should find a proper label for the

persons who are always on the look out for some monk to abuse and attack, I do

not want to use foul words. I have too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to

the worthy. For you, these things are means of passing your idle time. For me,

saamkhya and yoga are more valuable than the whole world.

>

> Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable

becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming omniscient. I am neither an

omniscient nor I want to become one.

>

> Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you would have used

civilised language. Then, my answer would have been different.

>

> Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out over two decades ago

with my active assisstance by others. I now how to cite texts and how to deduce

meanings.

>

> Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try to learn the basics

: yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be discussed with drunkards (not

you).

>

> -VJ

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

>

>

> ________________________________

> " harimalla " <harimalla

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

Dear Jhaaji,

> Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda' s translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

> If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search for

that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even

when you are convinced.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Malla Ji,

> >

> > Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

> >

> > I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which

you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> > If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on

arguing that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> > From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our

scientific phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of

the pinnacle,or the finale.

> > Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of

vedanta goes to vasistha.

> > Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> > Hari Malla

> >

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

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

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

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > > >

> > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > > him

> > > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > > actually

> > > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > > a serious scholar will make.

> > > >

> > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > > the

> > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > > of later scholars.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > > latter a special purusha.

> > > >

> > > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > > on

> > > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > > >

> > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > > Saamkhya

> > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > > Soul.

> > > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > > theistic philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > > >

> > > > 4)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda

> > > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > > of

> > > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > > about these big subjects.

> > > >

> > > > 5)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > > Brahmasutra

> > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > > this

> > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > > >

> > > > 6)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > > >

> > > > 7)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > > his

> > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > > the

> > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > > Ajna

> > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > > meaning

> > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > > not

> > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > > Upanishad.

> > > >

> > > > 8)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by

> > > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > > One

> > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that

> > > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > > sanyaasa,

> > > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > > >

> > > > 9)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > > in

> > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > > not

> > > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > > >

> > > > 10)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > > not

> > > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > > samskaara.

> > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > > took his decision.

> > > >

> > > > 11)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > > brahmacharya

> > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > > with

> > > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > > not

> > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > > still

> > > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > > grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is

> > > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To All,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > > at that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > > scholars.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > > philosophies.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > > proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > > sanyashi " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > > " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear friends,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > > >

> > > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > > iceberg.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > > is relative to the observer " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > > should learn it properly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > > clarify this point.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > > agree with me with the details.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Good write-up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > A few clarifications please.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > > not

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > > term

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Are these your own computations?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > > was known to the modern science

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > > bhootas.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > > scientific terms?>>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > supercomputer

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > > socalled intelligence.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > > after one !!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > > the the witnessed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > > observed)?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > > terms?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ..

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > > ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > > Excellent!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > > Material World.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > > its Creator.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > > third side of this strange coin.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Universe,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > JR

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Shri harimallaji,

 

One divyavarsha is one Solar year. I did not mean divyadin. You might have

missed my earlier mails in AIA, where I said that 1700 Divya varsha or Solar

year is equal to 3030 Lunar Nakshatriya year or Human year, according to Purana

ie. the Fifth Veda. Don't be impatient. When you get to read the Vayu purana

then you will know it.

 

Vinay Jha threw a challenge that If I cannot show the mention of Sankhya in

Svetasvatara Upanishad then I am an idiot and If I can show that Svetasvatara

mentions Sankhya then he is an idiot. Now I had shown to him in my reply that

Svetasvatara Upanishad does mention  Sankhya in verse 13 of Chapter 6. Now I am

sure he will not have the moral courage to admit that he lost the challenge. He

may now avoid me. as he has no face.

 

SKB

 

 

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

 

 

harimalla <harimalla

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:36 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Jhaaji,

I marvel at the amount of knowledge you have.Sometimes I think because you know

too much, you have no time to digest and summarise them all.So prhaps knowing

less may also be beneficial sometimes.

Sorry for my attributing characteristics of which you have no such intentions to

have.I may be wrong.So forgive me.

But Vivekananda is a man of great repute.He has said what I have mentioned.Kapil

muni is also described as the son of Deevahuti in Bhagvat purana.This version of

Kapil muni seems to be different, since here he is more of a devotee praising

God rather than a man of gyan (knowledge), who is often said to be atheistic.I

have heard Prabhupada say the two are different.

But let me say directly what I wanted to say.

My intention is that a person may have gyan or infinite knowledge but he may be

still a dwait-bad.This is clarified by the sloka of yoga sutra which you think

is my short cut to knowledge.Since, 'when knowledge becomes infinite prakriti is

still there in a small form', purush and prakriti are still existing in two

different forms even to a gyani.This was my intention. Thus a person full of

gyan, as Shri Krishna mentions in the Gita praising samkhya, may still think the

knower and the known are different things, although the known has become very

small for him.A person who has overome maya may not say that he and maya are the

same, as we find adwatin like Adi-Shankaracharya mention of the sameness of the

rope and the serpent.

I hope you agree with me.

About shri Bhattacharjyaji' s claim that a divya varsha is one solar year,I

think he may have meant divya din, and 'varsha' may have slippped from his

mouth.This is not so important that we have to pursue the matter so

thoroughly.But when I say there is no cycle of 360 years and it is only

symbolic, one ought to think seriously.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Mr Malla,

>

> This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in astrology.

>

> You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your slippery nature " ) and

('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are

convinced " ).

>

> Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you ought to have provided

some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery nature " ? SKB cites texts

falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips to citing other texts falsely, but

he is not slippery and sdishonest for you !! He takes a daily dose of two tolas

of wine before discussiong Dharmashaastras. He will be a good company for you,

excuse me. Why are you showering your omniscience on a slippery and dishonest

fool like me ?

>

> I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika persons, who do not

try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should find a proper label for the

persons who are always on the look out for some monk to abuse and attack, I do

not want to use foul words. I have too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to

the worthy. For you, these things are means of passing your idle time. For me,

saamkhya and yoga are more valuable than the whole world.

>

> Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable

becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming omniscient. I am neither an

omniscient nor I want to become one.

>

> Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you would have used

civilised language. Then, my answer would have been different.

>

> Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out over two decades ago

with my active assisstance by others. I now how to cite texts and how to deduce

meanings.

>

> Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try to learn the basics

: yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be discussed with drunkards (not

you).

>

> -VJ

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

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

Dear Jhaaji,

> Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda' s translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

> If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search for

that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even

when you are convinced.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Malla Ji,

> >

> > Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

> >

> > I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which

you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> > If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on arguing

that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> > From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our

scientific phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of

the pinnacle,or the finale.

> > Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of vedanta

goes to vasistha.

> > Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> > Hari Malla

> >

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

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

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

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > > >

> > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > > him

> > > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > > actually

> > > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > > a serious scholar will make.

> > > >

> > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > > the

> > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > > of later scholars.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > > latter a special purusha.

> > > >

> > > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > > on

> > > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > > >

> > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > > Saamkhya

> > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > > Soul.

> > > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > > theistic philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > > >

> > > > 4)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda

> > > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > > of

> > > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > > about these big subjects.

> > > >

> > > > 5)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > > Brahmasutra

> > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > > this

> > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > > >

> > > > 6)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > > >

> > > > 7)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > > his

> > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > > the

> > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > > Ajna

> > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > > meaning

> > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > > not

> > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > > Upanishad.

> > > >

> > > > 8)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by

> > > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > > One

> > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that

> > > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > > sanyaasa,

> > > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > > >

> > > > 9)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > > in

> > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > > not

> > > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > > >

> > > > 10)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > > not

> > > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > > samskaara.

> > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > > took his decision.

> > > >

> > > > 11)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > > brahmacharya

> > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > > with

> > > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > > not

> > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > > still

> > > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > > grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is

> > > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To All,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > > at that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > > scholars.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > > philosophies.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > > proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > > sanyashi " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > > " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear friends,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > > >

> > > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > > iceberg.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > > is relative to the observer " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > > should learn it properly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > > clarify this point.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > > agree with me with the details.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Good write-up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > A few clarifications please.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > > not

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > > term

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Are these your own computations?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > > was known to the modern science

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > > bhootas.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > > scientific terms?>>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > supercomputer

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > > socalled intelligence.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > > after one !!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > > the the witnessed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > > observed)?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > > terms?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ..

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > > ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > > Excellent!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > > Material World.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > > its Creator.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > > third side of this strange coin.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Universe,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > JR

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Malla Ji,

 

You are repeating your offensive language : " you know too much, you have no

time to digest and

summarise them all. So perhaps knowing less may also be beneficial

sometimes. "

 

Would you like same words addressed to

you ??? From your past mails, I gather you know how to

talk civilly, but like SKB you have decided to use foul words for me.

 

You have already declared me

to be suffering from indigestion on account of excessive reading. Is it not an

expression

of jealousy for a person who read much ?? If this remark by me is wrong, can

you put forth any explanation why

you cannot address me without an offensive remark, even when there is no

cause of provocation ??

 

As I said earlier, I do not want to talk about shaastras with an

uncivil person who starts addressing me with insulting remarks.But I am giving

some brief hints which may help you

if you possess any desire to know the real meanings of texts. You are

misinterpreting the sutra of Yoga. I have no wish to engage in any lengthy

argument because I have plenty of tasks.

 

Prakriti will remain here always,

because there is no end of bounded purushas (jeevas). But Prakriti ceases to

exist completely for an emancipated soul. Once you digest this simple truth,

you will find that all discussions about dvaita and advaita are child-talk.

Prakriti

exists and does not exist : it exists for the ignorant but does not exist for

the mukta. If something exists in ignorance and vanishes after knowledge,

then it must be maayaa and untruth : this leads us to advaita. But for

unliberated souls, Prakriti is a harsh reality whose existence cannot be denied.

Prakriti is a great (pra) kriti, but it is merely a kriti of the Creator. The

Creator is not Ishvara. Ishvara is that form of Brahman who has a " desire "

of Kalyaana of jeevas (ish means desire,

vara means varana). Brahman has no desire. Hence, Brahman is different from

Ishvara. So is Brahmaa, who is the Creator of Kalpa through his Kalpanaa.

 

As for SKB's claims of idiocy, he has certainly qualified

for it through his own words (I am not abusing him, he is abusing himself) :

 

by declaring Saamkhya as

atheistic and God being useless for Saamkhya, which I refuted by saying that

Shvetaashvatara Upanishada contains no such thing,

 

but thereafter he cited

verse-13 of chapter-6 of Shvetaashvatara Upanishada for a mention of

" ...Saamkhyayoga

through which one knows the Deva and is relieved of all bonds " .

 

SKB fails to realize that a Saamkhyayoga which helps in knowing God

cannot be atheistic. What is the IQ of such a self-proclaimed " scholar " ??

Atheism is derived from a+theos , and theos is linguistically cognate

of devas. Thus, atheism means without or opposed to God / gods. But the

Saamkhyayoga of Shvetaashvatara Upanishada says Saamkhyayoga is a means of

knowing the Deva.

 

I refuted the mention of

atheistic Saamkhyawhich SKB was

insisting on, which is present only in some commentaries and not in ancient

scriptures which put Saamkhya among theist

philosophies.

 

-VJ

===================== ==

 

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:40:01 PM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Shri harimallaji,

 

One divyavarsha is one Solar year. I did not mean divyadin. You might have

missed my earlier mails in AIA, where I said that 1700 Divya varsha or Solar

year is equal to 3030 Lunar Nakshatriya year or Human year, according to Purana

ie. the Fifth Veda. Don't be impatient. When you get to read the Vayu purana

then you will know it.

 

Vinay Jha threw a challenge that If I cannot show the mention of Sankhya in

Svetasvatara Upanishad then I am an idiot and If I can show that Svetasvatara

mentions Sankhya then he is an idiot. Now I had shown to him in my reply that

Svetasvatara Upanishad does mention Sankhya in verse 13 of Chapter 6. Now I am

sure he will not have the moral courage to admit that he lost the challenge. He

may now avoid me. as he has no face.

 

SKB

 

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com>

wrote:

 

harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com>

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:36 AM

 

Dear Jhaaji,

I marvel at the amount of knowledge you have.Sometimes I think because you know

too much, you have no time to digest and summarise them all.So prhaps knowing

less may also be beneficial sometimes.

Sorry for my attributing characteristics of which you have no such intentions to

have.I may be wrong.So forgive me.

But Vivekananda is a man of great repute.He has said what I have mentioned.Kapil

muni is also described as the son of Deevahuti in Bhagvat purana.This version of

Kapil muni seems to be different, since here he is more of a devotee praising

God rather than a man of gyan (knowledge), who is often said to be atheistic.I

have heard Prabhupada say the two are different.

But let me say directly what I wanted to say.

My intention is that a person may have gyan or infinite knowledge but he may be

still a dwait-bad.This is clarified by the sloka of yoga sutra which you think

is my short cut to knowledge.Since, 'when knowledge becomes infinite prakriti is

still there in a small form', purush and prakriti are still existing in two

different forms even to a gyani.This was my intention. Thus a person full of

gyan, as Shri Krishna mentions in the Gita praising samkhya, may still think the

knower and the known are different things, although the known has become very

small for him.A person who has overome maya may not say that he and maya are the

same, as we find adwatin like Adi-Shankaracharya mention of the sameness of the

rope and the serpent.

I hope you agree with me.

About shri Bhattacharjyaji' s claim that a divya varsha is one solar year,I

think he may have meant divya din, and 'varsha' may have slippped from his

mouth.This is not so important that we have to pursue the matter so

thoroughly.But when I say there is no cycle of 360 years and it is only

symbolic, one ought to think seriously.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Mr Malla,

>

> This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in astrology.

>

> You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your slippery nature " ) and

('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are

convinced " ).

>

> Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you ought to have provided

some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery nature " ? SKB cites texts

falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips to citing other texts falsely, but

he is not slippery and sdishonest for you !! He takes a daily dose of two tolas

of wine before discussiong Dharmashaastras. He will be a good company for you,

excuse me. Why are you showering your omniscience on a slippery and dishonest

fool like me ?

>

> I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika persons, who do not

try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should find a proper label for the

persons who are always on the look out for some monk to abuse and attack, I do

not want to use foul words. I have too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to

the worthy. For you, these things are means of passing your idle time. For me,

saamkhya and yoga are more valuable than the whole world.

>

> Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable

becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming omniscient. I am neither an

omniscient nor I want to become one.

>

> Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you would have used

civilised language. Then, my answer would have been different.

>

> Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out over two decades ago

with my active assisstance by others. I now how to cite texts and how to deduce

meanings.

>

> Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try to learn the basics

: yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be discussed with drunkards (not

you).

>

> -VJ

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

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

Dear Jhaaji,

> Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda' s translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

> If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search for

that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even

when you are convinced.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Malla Ji,

> >

> > Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

> >

> > I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which

you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> > If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on arguing

that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> > From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our

scientific phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of

the pinnacle,or the finale.

> > Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of vedanta

goes to vasistha.

> > Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> > Hari Malla

> >

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

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

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

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > > >

> > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > > him

> > > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > > actually

> > > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > > a serious scholar will make.

> > > >

> > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > > the

> > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > > of later scholars.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > > latter a special purusha.

> > > >

> > > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > > on

> > > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > > >

> > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > > Saamkhya

> > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > > Soul.

> > > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > > theistic philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > > >

> > > > 4)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda

> > > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > > of

> > > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > > about these big subjects.

> > > >

> > > > 5)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > > Brahmasutra

> > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > > this

> > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > > >

> > > > 6)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > > >

> > > > 7)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > > his

> > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > > the

> > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > > Ajna

> > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > > meaning

> > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > > not

> > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > > Upanishad.

> > > >

> > > > 8)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by

> > > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > > One

> > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that

> > > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > > sanyaasa,

> > > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > > >

> > > > 9)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > > in

> > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > > not

> > > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > > >

> > > > 10)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > > not

> > > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > > samskaara.

> > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > > took his decision.

> > > >

> > > > 11)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > > brahmacharya

> > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > > with

> > > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > > not

> > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > > still

> > > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > > grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is

> > > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To All,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > > at that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > > scholars.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > > philosophies.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > > proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > > sanyashi " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > > " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear friends,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > > >

> > > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > > iceberg.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > > is relative to the observer " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > > should learn it properly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > > clarify this point.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > > agree with me with the details.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Good write-up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > A few clarifications please.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > > not

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > > term

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Are these your own computations?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > > was known to the modern science

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > > bhootas.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > > scientific terms?>>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > supercomputer

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > > socalled intelligence.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > > after one !!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > > the the witnessed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > > observed)?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > > terms?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ..

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > > ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > > Excellent!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > > Material World.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > > its Creator.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > > third side of this strange coin.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Universe,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > JR

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Malla Ji,

 

Whether someone accepts a cycle of 360 years or not is another

matter, but if someone deliberately misinterprets ancient texts just

to put forth his own agenda, then it is a serious crime. Divya Varsha is a

DIVYA cycle, which you will never find in Nature. nature is material or

sensory world, but it is wrong to imagine that the Cosmos is limited to human

sense organs only.

 

SKB is a liar. Here are some examples

of his falsehoods :

 

SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha

(being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years as

mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh (together

with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he avoided any talk on

MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted Vishnu Purana out of

context.

 

When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove

him, he changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest "

Purana.

 

When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again

and said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha,

because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu

Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ).

 

SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without

referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned

above. When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana

or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with a

dishonest person.

 

Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members

here that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberately quoting scriptures

falsely for proving his wrong ideas? These exchanges occurred during first half

of May and I have never deleted any messages from my archives.

 

-VJ

======================== ====

 

________________________________

" harimalla " <harimalla

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:06:55 PM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Jhaaji,

I marvel at the amount of knowledge you have.Sometimes I think because you know

too much, you have no time to digest and summarise them all.So prhaps knowing

less may also be beneficial sometimes.

Sorry for my attributing characteristics of which you have no such intentions

to have.I may be wrong.So forgive me.

But Vivekananda is a man of great repute.He has said what I have mentioned.Kapil

muni is also described as the son of Deevahuti in Bhagvat purana.This version of

Kapil muni seems to be different, since here he is more of a devotee praising

God rather than a man of gyan (knowledge), who is often said to be atheistic.I

have heard Prabhupada say the two are different.

But let me say directly what I wanted to say.

My intention is that a person may have gyan or infinite knowledge but he may be

still a dwait-bad.This is clarified by the sloka of yoga sutra which you think

is my short cut to knowledge.Since, 'when knowledge becomes infinite prakriti is

still there in a small form', purush and prakriti are still existing in two

different forms even to a gyani.This was my intention. Thus a person full of

gyan, as Shri Krishna mentions in the Gita praising samkhya, may still think the

knower and the known are different things, although the known has become very

small for him.A person who has overome maya may not say that he and maya are the

same, as we find adwatin like Adi-Shankaracharya mention of the sameness of the

rope and the serpent.

I hope you agree with me.

About shri Bhattacharjyaji' s claim that a divya varsha is one solar year,I

think he may have meant divya din, and 'varsha' may have slippped from his

mouth.This is not so important that we have to pursue the matter so

thoroughly.But when I say there is no cycle of 360 years and it is only

symbolic, one ought to think seriously.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Mr Malla,

>

> This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in astrology.

>

> You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your slippery nature " )

and ('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are

convinced " ).

>

> Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you ought to have provided

some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery nature " ? SKB cites texts

falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips to citing other texts falsely, but

he is not slippery and sdishonest for you !! He takes a daily dose of two tolas

of wine before discussiong Dharmashaastras. He will be a good company for you,

excuse me. Why are you showering your omniscience on a slippery and dishonest

fool like me ?

>

> I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika persons, who do not

try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should find a proper label for the

persons who are always on the look out for some monk to abuse and attack, I do

not want to use foul words. I have too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to

the worthy. For you, these things are means of passing your idle time. For me,

saamkhya and yoga are more valuable than the whole world.

>

> Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable

becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming omniscient. I am neither an

omniscient nor I want to become one.

>

> Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you would have used

civilised language. Then, my answer would have been different.

>

> Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out over two decades ago

with my active assisstance by others. I now how to cite texts and how to deduce

meanings.

>

> Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try to learn the basics

: yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be discussed with drunkards (not

you).

>

> -VJ

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

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..>

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

Dear Jhaaji,

> Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda' s translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

> If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search for

that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even

when you are convinced.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Malla Ji,

> >

> > Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel offended,

offending is not my intention).

> >

> > I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts, which

you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without feeling the

need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya

and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are making

unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> > If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on

arguing that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> > From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our

scientific phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of

the pinnacle,or the finale.

> > Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of

vedanta goes to vasistha.

> > Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> > Hari Malla

> >

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

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

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

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay,

> > > >

> > > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > > >

> > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > > him

> > > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > > actually

> > > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > > a serious scholar will make.

> > > >

> > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > > the

> > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > > of later scholars.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > > latter a special purusha.

> > > >

> > > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > > on

> > > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > > >

> > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > > Saamkhya

> > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > > Soul.

> > > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > > theistic philosophies.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > > >

> > > > 4)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda

> > > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > > of

> > > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > > about these big subjects.

> > > >

> > > > 5)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > > Brahmasutra

> > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > > this

> > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > > >

> > > > 6)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > > >

> > > > 7)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > > his

> > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > > the

> > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > > Ajna

> > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > > meaning

> > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > > not

> > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > > Upanishad.

> > > >

> > > > 8)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by

> > > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > > One

> > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that

> > > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > > sanyaasa,

> > > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > > >

> > > > 9)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > > in

> > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > > not

> > > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > > >

> > > > 10)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > > not

> > > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > > samskaara.

> > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > > took his decision.

> > > >

> > > > 11)

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > > brahmacharya

> > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > > with

> > > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > > not

> > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > > still

> > > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > > grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is

> > > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > To All,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > philosophy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > > at that. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > > scholars.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > > philosophies.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > > proper charater and mindset.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > only One is in Many.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > following statements :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > >

> > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > > sanyashi " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > > " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 2 : 39

> > > >

> > > > 3 : 3

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > >

> > > > 13 : 24

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter Verse

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > >

> > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > >

> > > > 9 : 28

> > > >

> > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > > >

> > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear friends,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > > >

> > > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > > iceberg.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > > is relative to the observer " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > > should learn it properly.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > > clarify this point.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > > agree with me with the details.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Good write-up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > A few clarifications please.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 1)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > > not

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > > term

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 2)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Are these your own computations?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > 3)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > > was known to the modern science

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > SKB

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > > bhootas.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > > scientific terms?>>>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > supercomputer

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > > socalled intelligence.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > > after one !!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > > the the witnessed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > > observed)?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > > terms?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > ..

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > > ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > > Excellent!!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > > Material World.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > > its Creator.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > the nakshatras

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > > third side of this strange coin.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > Universe,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > JR

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

 

The following was well said by Vinay Jhaaji, I fully agree:

 

<Prakriti will remain here always,

because there is no end of bounded purushas (jeevas). But Prakriti ceases to

exist completely for an emancipated soul. Once you digest this simple truth,

you will find that all discussions about dvaita and advaita are child-talk.

Prakriti

exists and does not exist : it exists for the ignorant but does not exist for

the mukta. If something exists in ignorance and vanishes after knowledge,

then it must be maayaa and untruth : this leads us to advaita. But for

unliberated souls, Prakriti is a harsh reality whose existence cannot be

denied.>

 

My further question is, For the mukta where does the prakriti go? My last

question, before I proceed to the scientific astrology- the science of light and

vision(darshan)centred on astronomy.I shall henceforth proceed to what is the

purush in the scientific terms, if you want me to shed light from the scientific

point of view.I will try to remind you what dharma shastras say about the

purush.Instead of quarreling on such a respectable topic,let us be amiable and

repectful to one another..thank you,

regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Malla Ji,

>

> You are repeating your offensive language : " you know too much, you have no

time to digest and

> summarise them all. So perhaps knowing less may also be beneficial

> sometimes. "

>

> Would you like same words addressed to

> you ??? From your past mails, I gather you know how to

> talk civilly, but like SKB you have decided to use foul words for me.

>

> You have already declared me

> to be suffering from indigestion on account of excessive reading. Is it not an

expression

> of jealousy for a person who read much ?? If this remark by me is wrong, can

you put forth any explanation why

> you cannot address me without an offensive remark, even when there is no

> cause of provocation ??

>

> As I said earlier, I do not want to talk about shaastras with an

> uncivil person who starts addressing me with insulting remarks.But I am giving

some brief hints which may help you

> if you possess any desire to know the real meanings of texts. You are

> misinterpreting the sutra of Yoga. I have no wish to engage in any lengthy

> argument because I have plenty of tasks.

>

> Prakriti will remain here always,

> because there is no end of bounded purushas (jeevas). But Prakriti ceases to

> exist completely for an emancipated soul. Once you digest this simple truth,

> you will find that all discussions about dvaita and advaita are child-talk.

Prakriti

> exists and does not exist : it exists for the ignorant but does not exist for

> the mukta. If something exists in ignorance and vanishes after knowledge,

> then it must be maayaa and untruth : this leads us to advaita. But for

> unliberated souls, Prakriti is a harsh reality whose existence cannot be

denied.

> Prakriti is a great (pra) kriti, but it is merely a kriti of the Creator. The

> Creator is not Ishvara. Ishvara is that form of Brahman who has a " desire "

> of Kalyaana of jeevas (ish means desire,

> vara means varana). Brahman has no desire. Hence, Brahman is different from

> Ishvara. So is Brahmaa, who is the Creator of Kalpa through his Kalpanaa.

>

> As for SKB's claims of idiocy, he has certainly qualified

> for it through his own words (I am not abusing him, he is abusing himself) :

>

> by declaring Saamkhya as

> atheistic and God being useless for Saamkhya, which I refuted by saying that

> Shvetaashvatara Upanishada contains no such thing,

>

> but thereafter he cited

> verse-13 of chapter-6 of Shvetaashvatara Upanishada for a mention of

" ...Saamkhyayoga

> through which one knows the Deva and is relieved of all bonds " .

>

> SKB fails to realize that a Saamkhyayoga which helps in knowing God

> cannot be atheistic. What is the IQ of such a self-proclaimed " scholar " ??

Atheism is derived from a+theos , and theos is linguistically cognate

> of devas. Thus, atheism means without or opposed to God / gods. But the

> Saamkhyayoga of Shvetaashvatara Upanishada says Saamkhyayoga is a means of

> knowing the Deva.

>

> I refuted the mention of

> atheistic Saamkhyawhich SKB was

> insisting on, which is present only in some commentaries and not in ancient

> scriptures which put Saamkhya among theist

> philosophies.

>

> -VJ

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

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:40:01 PM

> Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely

!!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Shri harimallaji,

>

> One divyavarsha is one Solar year. I did not mean divyadin. You might have

missed my earlier mails in AIA, where I said that 1700 Divya varsha or Solar

year is equal to 3030 Lunar Nakshatriya year or Human year, according to Purana

ie. the Fifth Veda. Don't be impatient. When you get to read the Vayu purana

then you will know it.

>

> Vinay Jha threw a challenge that If I cannot show the mention of Sankhya in

Svetasvatara Upanishad then I am an idiot and If I can show that Svetasvatara

mentions Sankhya then he is an idiot. Now I had shown to him in my reply that

Svetasvatara Upanishad does mention Sankhya in verse 13 of Chapter 6. Now I am

sure he will not have the moral courage to admit that he lost the challenge. He

may now avoid me. as he has no face.

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Wed, 7/15/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com>

wrote:

>

> harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com>

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

>

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:36 AM

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

> I marvel at the amount of knowledge you have.Sometimes I think because you

know too much, you have no time to digest and summarise them all.So prhaps

knowing less may also be beneficial sometimes.

> Sorry for my attributing characteristics of which you have no such intentions

to have.I may be wrong.So forgive me.

> But Vivekananda is a man of great repute.He has said what I have

mentioned.Kapil muni is also described as the son of Deevahuti in Bhagvat

purana.This version of Kapil muni seems to be different, since here he is more

of a devotee praising God rather than a man of gyan (knowledge), who is often

said to be atheistic.I have heard Prabhupada say the two are different.

> But let me say directly what I wanted to say.

> My intention is that a person may have gyan or infinite knowledge but he may

be still a dwait-bad.This is clarified by the sloka of yoga sutra which you

think is my short cut to knowledge.Since, 'when knowledge becomes infinite

prakriti is still there in a small form', purush and prakriti are still existing

in two different forms even to a gyani.This was my intention. Thus a person full

of gyan, as Shri Krishna mentions in the Gita praising samkhya, may still think

the knower and the known are different things, although the known has become

very small for him.A person who has overome maya may not say that he and maya

are the same, as we find adwatin like Adi-Shankaracharya mention of the sameness

of the rope and the serpent.

> I hope you agree with me.

> About shri Bhattacharjyaji' s claim that a divya varsha is one solar year,I

think he may have meant divya din, and 'varsha' may have slippped from his

mouth.This is not so important that we have to pursue the matter so

thoroughly.But when I say there is no cycle of 360 years and it is only

symbolic, one ought to think seriously.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Mr Malla,

> >

> > This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in astrology.

> >

> > You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your slippery nature " )

and ('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are

convinced " ).

> >

> > Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you ought to have

provided some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery nature " ? SKB cites

texts falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips to citing other texts

falsely, but he is not slippery and sdishonest for you !! He takes a daily dose

of two tolas of wine before discussiong Dharmashaastras. He will be a good

company for you, excuse me. Why are you showering your omniscience on a slippery

and dishonest fool like me ?

> >

> > I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika persons, who do

not try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should find a proper label for the

persons who are always on the look out for some monk to abuse and attack, I do

not want to use foul words. I have too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to

the worthy. For you, these things are means of passing your idle time. For me,

saamkhya and yoga are more valuable than the whole world.

> >

> > Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable

becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming omniscient. I am neither an

omniscient nor I want to become one.

> >

> > Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you would have used

civilised language. Then, my answer would have been different.

> >

> > Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out over two decades

ago with my active assisstance by others. I now how to cite texts and how to

deduce meanings.

> >

> > Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try to learn the

basics : yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be discussed with drunkards

(not you).

> >

> > -VJ

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

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> >

> > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely !!!

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> > Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like to challenge

Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If you want to do that

then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga sutra of Patanjanli or not.The

sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes infinite then the knowable becomes

small'.This is also Vivekananda' s translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third

from the last verse on Kaibalaym.

> > If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says then I will search

for that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on my own. This I know will be

difficult, because since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will deny even

when you are convinced.

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Malla Ji,

> > >

> > > Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me if you feel

offended, offending is not my intention).

> > >

> > > I posted a well referenced message with citations from original texts,

which you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient " attitude without

feeling the need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others. moreover, the debate was

over Saamkhya and not about Swami Vivekanand : you are digressing. And you are

making unsubstantiated vague statements, which is not my duty to substantiate.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Falsely

!!!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you agree or keep on

arguing that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> > > From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail work of our

scientific phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only did the putting of

the pinnacle,or the finale.

> > > Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the final credit of

vedanta goes to vasistha.

> > > Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me tell you what

Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When knowledge becomes infinite

the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

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

wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 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

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay,

> > > > >

> > > > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he

> > > > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against

> > > > him

> > > > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> > > > actually

> > > > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > > > philosophy.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel

> > > > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what

> > > > a serious scholar will make.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> > > > the

> > > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> > > > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> > > > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation

> > > > > of later scholars.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to

> > > > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> > > > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He

> > > > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as

> > > > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

> > > > latter a special purusha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> > > > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> > > > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated

> > > > on

> > > > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> > > > Saamkhya

> > > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> > > > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> > > > Soul.

> > > > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> > > > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

> > > > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal,

> > > > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

> > > > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

> > > > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

> > > > > theistic philosophies.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free

> > > > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge

> > > > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to

> > > > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are

> > > > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your

> > > > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > > > >

> > > > > 4)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > > Veda

> > > > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to

> > > > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> > > > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

> > > > of

> > > > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> > > > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> > > > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

> > > > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> > > > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> > > > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya

> > > > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> > > > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the

> > > > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your

> > > > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> > > > about these big subjects.

> > > > >

> > > > > 5)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> > > > Brahmasutra

> > > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> > > > this

> > > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > > > only One is in Many.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it

> > > > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 6)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > > following statements

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > > > >

> > > > > 7)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> > > > his

> > > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > > >

> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> > > > the

> > > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> > > > Ajna

> > > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> > > > meaning

> > > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> > > > not

> > > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> > > > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at

> > > > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

> > > > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> > > > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not

> > > > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

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

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

> > > > Upanishad.

> > > > >

> > > > > 8)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > > by

> > > > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> > > > One

> > > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > > that

> > > > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa

> > > > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> > > > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> > > > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> > > > sanyaasa,

> > > > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> > > > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> > > > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> > > > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> > > > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > > > >

> > > > > 9)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> > > > in

> > > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

> > > > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was

> > > > not

> > > > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> > > > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> > > > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often

> > > > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of

> > > > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > > > >

> > > > > 10)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> > > > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were

> > > > not

> > > > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 2 : 39

> > > > >

> > > > > 3 : 3

> > > > >

> > > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > > >

> > > > > 13 : 24

> > > > >

> > > > > 18 : 13

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > > >

> > > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > > >

> > > > > 9 : 28

> > > > >

> > > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> > > > samskaara.

> > > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> > > > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked

> > > > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by

> > > > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and

> > > > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> > > > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then

> > > > took his decision.

> > > > >

> > > > > 11)

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which

> > > > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> > > > brahmacharya

> > > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> > > > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> > > > with

> > > > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

> > > > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do

> > > > not

> > > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> > > > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> > > > still

> > > > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> > > > grihasthas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > > is

> > > > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> > > > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> > > > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -SKB

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > > the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > To All,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is

> > > > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or

> > > > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not

> > > > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> > > > philosophy.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it

> > > > at that. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is

> > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but

> > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the

> > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each,

> > > > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is

> > > > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> > > > scholars.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> > > > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> > > > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and

> > > > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of

> > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya

> > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One

> > > > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since

> > > > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of

> > > > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never

> > > > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say

> > > > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too

> > > > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to

> > > > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> > > > philosophies.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the

> > > > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> > > > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> > > > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

> > > > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

> > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood

> > > > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> > > > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada

> > > > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> > > > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda.

> > > > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> > > > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a

> > > > proper charater and mindset.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra

> > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls

> > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities

> > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many

> > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this

> > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity

> > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because

> > > > only One is in Many.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> > > > following statements :

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who

> > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his

> > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > > >

> > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the

> > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG

> > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna

> > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning

> > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read

> > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

> > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> > > > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya

> > > > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One

> > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others

> > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is

> > > > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

> > > > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and

> > > > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one

> > > > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> > > > sanyashi " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> > > > " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in

> > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

> > > > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > > > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was

> > > > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal

> > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to

> > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said

> > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow

> > > > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given.

> > > > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 2 : 39

> > > > >

> > > > > 3 : 3

> > > > >

> > > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > > >

> > > > > 13 : 24

> > > > >

> > > > > 18 : 13

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > > >

> > > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > > >

> > > > > 9 : 28

> > > > >

> > > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is

> > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all

> > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > > > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> > > > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is

> > > > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

> > > > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> > > > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for

> > > > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never

> > > > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say

> > > > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa

> > > > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it),

> > > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

> > > > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> > > > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > > the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friends,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme

> > > > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says

> > > > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally

> > > > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> > > > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer

> > > > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

> > > > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

> > > > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed

> > > > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita

> > > > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does

> > > > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved.

> > > > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence

> > > > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> > > > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.

> > > > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> > > > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> > > > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> > > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> > > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> > > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is

> > > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the

> > > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> > > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

> > > > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also

> > > > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was

> > > > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> > > > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> > > > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to

> > > > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

> > > > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> > > > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> > > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

> > > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

> > > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > > > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue

> > > > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > > > >

> > > > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before

> > > > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > > the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> > > > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> > > > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> > > > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

> > > > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text

> > > > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a

> > > > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> > > > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> > > > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> > > > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> > > > iceberg.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

> > > > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> > > > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> > > > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> > > > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every

> > > > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

> > > > is relative to the observer " .

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

> > > > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> > > > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> > > > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > > > should learn it properly.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower

> > > > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha

> > > > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> > > > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> > > > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> > > > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > > nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> > > > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> > > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> > > > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

> > > > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > > > clarify this point.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> > > > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> > > > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

> > > > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our

> > > > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> > > > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> > > > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our

> > > > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> > > > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> > > > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> > > > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the

> > > > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

> > > > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> > > > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> > > > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> > > > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> > > > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> > > > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not

> > > > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it

> > > > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> > > > agree with me with the details.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

> > > > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> > > > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> > > > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

> > > > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Good write-up.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > A few clarifications please.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > 1)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

> > > > not

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

> > > > term

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > vadanti " .

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > 2)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> > > > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Are these your own computations?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > 3)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis

> > > > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

> > > > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure

> > > > was known to the modern science

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > SKB

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > > the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

> > > > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

> > > > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

> > > > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> > > > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time

> > > > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

> > > > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> > > > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

> > > > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even

> > > > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as

> > > > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and

> > > > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

> > > > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> > > > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

> > > > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> > > > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

> > > > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > > > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> > > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

> > > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

> > > > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> > > > bhootas.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> > > > scientific terms?>>>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

> > > > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> > > > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> > > > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

> > > > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

> > > > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> > > > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam

> > > > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by

> > > > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

> > > > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

> > > > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> > > > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> > > > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> > > > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

> > > > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False

> > > > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

> > > > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

> > > > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

> > > > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas

> > > > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " )

> > > > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but

> > > > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

> > > > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> > > > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

> > > > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by

> > > > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

> > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

> > > > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> > > > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> > > > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> > > > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

> > > > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of

> > > > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

> > > > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

> > > > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> > > > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

> > > > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory

> > > > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> > > > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical "

> > > > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > supercomputer

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> > > > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> > > > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> > > > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> > > > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

> > > > socalled intelligence.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

> > > > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> > > > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

> > > > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> > > > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

> > > > after one !!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

> > > > nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is

> > > > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

> > > > the the witnessed.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the

> > > > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> > > > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > > > observed)?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

> > > > terms?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > ..

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > > > ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> > > > Excellent!!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

> > > > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

> > > > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> > > > Material World.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

> > > > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > > > its Creator.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> > > > the nakshatras

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

> > > > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri

> > > > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the

> > > > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> > > > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> > > > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> > > > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite

> > > > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

> > > > third side of this strange coin.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in

> > > > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> > > > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that

> > > > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly,

> > > > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> > > > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe

> > > > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite

> > > > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because

> > > > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> > > > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

> > > > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

> > > > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

> > > > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not

> > > > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > Universe,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> > > > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> > > > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I

> > > > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> > > > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> > > > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> > > > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the

> > > > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

> > > > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light,

> > > > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects

> > > > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > JR

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Malla Ji,

>

> I am replying without reading you full mail , because the moment I

read " discussion about philosohy " , I stopped and decided to advise you

to post such discussions on philosophy to non-astrological fora,

otherwise I will lodge a complaint against you with moderators. It is an

astrological forum. I will neglect all your mails unless and until you

answer any of the two questions from me about " scientific astrology "

which you boasted you will teach me.

>

> -VJ

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

>

>

> ________________________________

> " harimalla " harimalla

>

> Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:23:09 PM

> Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya and Vinay Jhaa both

cite the scriptures correctly!!!

>

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

> Please do not accept or deny before you know what we are discussing.I

only ask to continue our discussion about philosohy on the purush, as we

have already been doing.Accepting, denying or no-comment is after we

have finished discussing the present philosophy on purush.

> Facing the pundits is my task,I ask you only to continue our present

discussions.

> I have said in my last mail, that the earth both has and does not have

a separate identity from the solar system.If we consider the sun with

respect to the stars,the earth need not be considered as a separate

identity.The earth will be part and parcel of the sun or its internal

system.But if we consider the different elements within this system,

then the earth may be considerd as a searate identity.

> Now you well know that in jyotish, the sun is considered as Atma or

Brahmah.Our religious scriptures also confirms this.

> Thus for all practical purposes, we may consider the earth as prakriti

and the sun as the Purush.We also find in dharma shastras mentions like

this,The purush of the months is the sun.Thus it is necessary for the

solar sankranti to be within a lunar month.When solar sankranti does not

fall in a lunar month,it is said to be eunuch(napungsak. Thus adhikmas

is napungsak, the month without a solar sankranti.This expression is

mentioned in Kal madhav in connection with adhmas.It continues to say

the purushas or adityas are 12 starting with Arun from the month of

Maagha.

> This truly is where our religius astrology ends up with the purush.

Thus purush is not so much of a intangible thing as we are normally

prone to think.Those of us who are concerned with astrology should never

forget this.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Malla Ji,

> >

> > The pandits will deride me if I accept your views. Why you want me

to speak for your wrong ideas before pandits, why you cannot face the

pandits yourself??

> >

> > -VJ

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

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " harimalla@ .. " harimalla@ ..>

> >

> > Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:09:39 PM

> > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya and Vinay Jhaa both

cite the scriptures correctly!!!

> >

> >

> > Dear Jhaaji,

> > But you opinion counts among the pundits.

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Malla Ji,

> > >

> > > " correct maintenance of the Dharmas shastras " cannot be carried

out in isolation. besides, most of the pandits never visit fora.

You are wasting your time here. You should participate in pandit sabhas

in cities like Kashi and Prayaga for reforming our supposedly

" outdated " dharmashaastras. Even if all members accept your

views, although not a single one can do so, it will have no effect on

the pandits and common men.

> > >

> > > -VJ

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

> > >

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > >

> > > Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:04:40 AM

> > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya and Vinay Jhaa

both cite the scriptures correctly!!!

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji and Jahhaji,

> > > Since both of you are so proficienct in the high philosohies, why

are we neglecting it in the practical aspects.Why do we go to only

worldly things like predictions only and turning your deaf ears to the

correct maintenance of the Dharmas shastras.You know our dharma shatras

are based on the timely celebration of the festivals.Do you not think it

is your first duty to have correct celebrations rather than the so

called indefinite nirayan jyotish shastras,which even surya sidhanta

does not recommend,and which is taking our festivals away from the

correct dates.

> > > Expecting your resonse,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@

...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > , " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > >

> > > > > The following was well said by Vinay Jhaaji, I fully agree:

> > > > >

> > > > > <Prakriti will remain here always,

> > > > > because there is no end of bounded purushas (jeevas). But

Prakriti ceases to

> > > > > exist completely for an emancipated soul. Once you digest this

simple truth,

> > > > > you will find that all discussions about dvaita and advaita

are child-talk.

> > > > > Prakriti

> > > > > exists and does not exist : it exists for the ignorant but

does not exist for

> > > > > the mukta. If something exists in ignorance and vanishes after

knowledge,

> > > > > then it must be maayaa and untruth : this leads us to advaita.

But for

> > > > > unliberated souls, Prakriti is a harsh reality whose existence

cannot be denied.>

> > > > >

> > > > > My further question is, For the mukta where does the prakriti

go? My last question, before I proceed to the scientific astrology- the

science of light and vision(darshan) centred on astronomy.I shall

henceforth proceed to what is the purush in the scientific terms, if you

want me to shed light from the scientific point of view.I will try to

remind you what dharma shastras say about the purush.Instead of

quarreling on such a respectable topic,let us be amiable and repectful

to one another..thank you,

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are repeating your offensive language : " you know too

much, you have no time to digest and

> > > > > > summarise them all. So perhaps knowing less may also be

beneficial

> > > > > > sometimes. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Would you like same words addressed to

> > > > > > you ??? From your past mails, I gather you know how to

> > > > > > talk civilly, but like SKB you have decided to use foul

words for me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have already declared me

> > > > > > to be suffering from indigestion on account of excessive

reading. Is it not an expression

> > > > > > of jealousy for a person who read much ?? If this remark by

me is wrong, can you put forth any explanation why

> > > > > > you cannot address me without an offensive remark, even when

there is no

> > > > > > cause of provocation ??

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said earlier, I do not want to talk about shaastras

with an

> > > > > > uncivil person who starts addressing me with insulting

remarks.But I am giving some brief hints which may help you

> > > > > > if you possess any desire to know the real meanings of

texts. You are

> > > > > > misinterpreting the sutra of Yoga. I have no wish to engage

in any lengthy

> > > > > > argument because I have plenty of tasks.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Prakriti will remain here always,

> > > > > > because there is no end of bounded purushas (jeevas). But

Prakriti ceases to

> > > > > > exist completely for an emancipated soul. Once you digest

this simple truth,

> > > > > > you will find that all discussions about dvaita and advaita

are child-talk. Prakriti

> > > > > > exists and does not exist : it exists for the ignorant but

does not exist for

> > > > > > the mukta. If something exists in ignorance and vanishes

after knowledge,

> > > > > > then it must be maayaa and untruth : this leads us to

advaita. But for

> > > > > > unliberated souls, Prakriti is a harsh reality whose

existence cannot be denied.

> > > > > > Prakriti is a great (pra) kriti, but it is merely a kriti of

the Creator. The

> > > > > > Creator is not Ishvara. Ishvara is that form of Brahman who

has a " desire "

> > > > > > of Kalyaana of jeevas (ish means desire,

> > > > > > vara means varana). Brahman has no desire. Hence, Brahman is

different from

> > > > > > Ishvara. So is Brahmaa, who is the Creator of Kalpa through

his Kalpanaa.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As for SKB's claims of idiocy, he has certainly qualified

> > > > > > for it through his own words (I am not abusing him, he is

abusing himself) :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > by declaring Saamkhya as

> > > > > > atheistic and God being useless for Saamkhya, which I

refuted by saying that

> > > > > > Shvetaashvatara Upanishada contains no such thing,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > but thereafter he cited

> > > > > > verse-13 of chapter-6 of Shvetaashvatara Upanishada for a

mention of " ...Saamkhyayoga

> > > > > > through which one knows the Deva and is relieved of all

bonds " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > SKB fails to realize that a Saamkhyayoga which helps in

knowing God

> > > > > > cannot be atheistic. What is the IQ of such a

self-proclaimed " scholar " ?? Atheism is derived from a+theos , and

theos is linguistically cognate

> > > > > > of devas. Thus, atheism means without or opposed to God /

gods. But the

> > > > > > Saamkhyayoga of Shvetaashvatara Upanishada says Saamkhyayoga

is a means of

> > > > > > knowing the Deva.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I refuted the mention of

> > > > > > atheistic Saamkhyawhich SKB was

> > > > > > insisting on, which is present only in some commentaries and

not in ancient

> > > > > > scriptures which put Saamkhya among theist

> > > > > > philosophies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -VJ

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:40:01 PM

> > > > > > Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Falsely !!!

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri harimallaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One divyavarsha is one Solar year. I did not mean divyadin.

You might have missed my earlier mails in AIA, where I said that 1700

Divya varsha or Solar year is equal to 3030 Lunar Nakshatriya year or

Human year, according to Purana ie. the Fifth Veda. Don't be impatient.

When you get to read the Vayu purana then you will know it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vinay Jha threw a challenge that If I cannot show the

mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara Upanishad then I am an idiot and If I

can show that Svetasvatara mentions Sankhya then he is an idiot. Now I

had shown to him in my reply that Svetasvatara Upanishad does mention

Sankhya in verse 13 of Chapter 6. Now I am sure he will not have the

moral courage to admit that he lost the challenge. He may now avoid me.

as he has no face.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > SKB

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/15/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com

harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Falsely !!!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:36 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > > > > I marvel at the amount of knowledge you have.Sometimes I

think because you know too much, you have no time to digest and

summarise them all.So prhaps knowing less may also be beneficial

sometimes.

> > > > > > Sorry for my attributing characteristics of which you have

no such intentions to have.I may be wrong.So forgive me.

> > > > > > But Vivekananda is a man of great repute.He has said what I

have mentioned.Kapil muni is also described as the son of Deevahuti in

Bhagvat purana.This version of Kapil muni seems to be different, since

here he is more of a devotee praising God rather than a man of gyan

(knowledge), who is often said to be atheistic.I have heard Prabhupada

say the two are different.

> > > > > > But let me say directly what I wanted to say.

> > > > > > My intention is that a person may have gyan or infinite

knowledge but he may be still a dwait-bad.This is clarified by the sloka

of yoga sutra which you think is my short cut to knowledge.Since, 'when

knowledge becomes infinite prakriti is still there in a small form',

purush and prakriti are still existing in two different forms even to a

gyani.This was my intention. Thus a person full of gyan, as Shri Krishna

mentions in the Gita praising samkhya, may still think the knower and

the known are different things, although the known has become very small

for him.A person who has overome maya may not say that he and maya are

the same, as we find adwatin like Adi-Shankaracharya mention of the

sameness of the rope and the serpent.

> > > > > > I hope you agree with me.

> > > > > > About shri Bhattacharjyaji' s claim that a divya varsha is

one solar year,I think he may have meant divya din, and 'varsha' may

have slippped from his mouth.This is not so important that we have to

pursue the matter so thoroughly.But when I say there is no cycle of 360

years and it is only symbolic, one ought to think seriously.

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr Malla,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is an astrological forum and you have no interest in

astrology.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have started using foul words for me ( " Knowing your

slippery nature " ) and ('since you boast so much on shastrartha, you will

deny even when you are convinced " ).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Before levelling false charges of dishonesty on me, you

ought to have provided some proof where I did show evidence of " slippery

nature " ? SKB cites texts falsely, and when caught red handed, he slips

to citing other texts falsely, but he is not slippery and sdishonest for

you !! He takes a daily dose of two tolas of wine before discussiong

Dharmashaastras. He will be a good company for you, excuse me. Why are

you showering your omniscience on a slippery and dishonest fool like me

?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not want to discuss dvait and advait with saamsaarika

persons, who do not try to live according to scriptures. Ytou should

find a proper label for the persons who are always on the look out for

some monk to abuse and attack, I do not want to use foul words. I have

too many tasks. I teach philosophy only to the worthy. For you, these

things are means of passing your idle time. For me, saamkhya and yoga

are more valuable than the whole world.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do a japa of the sutra : " when knowledge becomes infinite

then the knowable becomes small " . This is your shortcut for becoming

omniscient. I am neither an omniscient nor I want to become one.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Had you really wished to discuss dvait and advait, you

would have used civilised language. Then, my answer would have been

different.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Post doctoral researches in these topics were carried out

over two decades ago with my active assisstance by others. I now how to

cite texts and how to deduce meanings.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Before rushing to omniscience and last sutras of yoga, try

to learn the basics : yama, niyama, etc. Saamkhya and Yoga cannot be

discussed with drunkards (not you).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:44:39 AM

> > > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Falsely !!!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > > > > > Knowing your slippery nature,I am asking if you would like

to challenge Vivekanada,on the interpretation of the darshan shastras.If

you want to do that then,I want to ask you if you agree with the yoga

sutra of Patanjanli or not.The sutra says, 'when knowledge becomes

infinite then the knowable becomes small'.This is also Vivekananda' s

translation of yoga sutra, chapter 4,third from the last verse on

Kaibalaym.

> > > > > > > If it is enough for you to know, what Vivekananda says

then I will search for that ,otherwise I have to try to convince you on

my own. This I know will be difficult, because since you boast so much

on shastrartha, you will deny even when you are convinced.

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your method of argumentation is amateurish (forgime me

if you feel offended, offending is not my intention).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I posted a well referenced message with citations from

original texts, which you are refuting on the basis of your " omniscient "

attitude without feeling the need to cite Swami Vivekananda or others.

moreover, the debate was over Saamkhya and not about Swami Vivekanand :

you are digressing. And you are making unsubstantiated vague statements,

which is not my duty to substantiate.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:40:58 PM

> > > > > > > > Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Falsely !!!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > > > > > > If Vivekananda said that samkhya is dwait, will you

agree or keep on arguing that samkhya is adwait.May we know?

> > > > > > > > From my memory he said that samkhya did all the detail

work of our scientific phlosophy and vedanta philosophy or Mimamsa only

did the putting of the pinnacle,or the finale.

> > > > > > > > Credit of the detail work goes to Kapil muni but the

final credit of vedanta goes to vasistha.

> > > > > > > > Is this version acceptable to you or not? If not let me

tell you what Patanjali says towards the end of Yoga sutra.'When

knowledge becomes infinite the knowable becomes small'.Do you agree to

this claim of Patanjali? tahnk you.

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Sunil

Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Vinay,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Please do not make vague statements.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a

majority of

> > > > > > > > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long.

And if truth is

> > > > > > > > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not

practixe it, then he

> > > > > > > > > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse

comment against

> > > > > > > > > him

> > > > > > > > > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas

which are

> > > > > > > > > actually

> > > > > > > > > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the

wrong textbooks of

> > > > > > > > > > philosophy.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tell me which statement can be called

state-sponsored with parallel

> > > > > > > > > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your

statement is not what

> > > > > > > > > a serious scholar will make.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term

for Purusha is

> > > > > > > > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in

plural in

> > > > > > > > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version

of Saamkhya (but

> > > > > > > > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni).

dualists interpret

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are

manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > > > > > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and

Purusha are one

> > > > > > > > > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is

not plural in

> > > > > > > > > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic

interpretation is a creation

> > > > > > > > > > of later scholars.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you

talk about that to

> > > > > > > > > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never

said like you

> > > > > > > > > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then

left it at that. He

> > > > > > > > > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali

called purushas as

> > > > > > > > > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from

Ishvara by calling the

> > > > > > > > > latter a special purusha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara

Kalama as te

> > > > > > > > > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what

happens to the souls

> > > > > > > > > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord

Buddha then meditated

> > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your

ignorance of that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 3)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies

is a favourite

> > > > > > > > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a

is a shortcut of

> > > > > > > > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among

atheist philosophies.

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies

the " Jna " in

> > > > > > > > > Saamkhya

> > > > > > > > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters.

Literally, Jna means

> > > > > > > > > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme

Being and the

> > > > > > > > > Soul.

> > > > > > > > > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of

Brahman but

> > > > > > > > > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be

individual Soul, but

> > > > > > > > > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different

from the universal,

> > > > > > > > > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does

not exist. On this

> > > > > > > > > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is

atheistic. If Gita

> > > > > > > > > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must

include Saamkhya aming

> > > > > > > > > > theistic philosophies.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the

purursha becomes free

> > > > > > > > > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate

Vedantic knowledge

> > > > > > > > > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya.

Yoga asks one to

> > > > > > > > > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat

Purusha and Ishvara are

> > > > > > > > > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and

Ishvara. With your

> > > > > > > > > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 4)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which

call use the term

> > > > > > > > > Veda

> > > > > > > > > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are

countless references to

> > > > > > > > > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly

differentiates

> > > > > > > > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas

on this

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of

the last portion

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter

was later named as

> > > > > > > > > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first

upanishada. Literally, Veda

> > > > > > > > > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is

meaningless without

> > > > > > > > > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to

perform worldly duties

> > > > > > > > > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we

might embark upon

> > > > > > > > > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not

have made your

> > > > > > > > > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction

between para-vidya

> > > > > > > > > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda

constitut5es

> > > > > > > > > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself

said that he is the

> > > > > > > > > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta

too. Please make your

> > > > > > > > > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it

before talking

> > > > > > > > > about these big subjects.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 5)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic

philosophy says

> > > > > > > > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The

Brahman. The

> > > > > > > > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their

separateness from

> > > > > > > > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in

detail in

> > > > > > > > > Brahmasutra

> > > > > > > > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says

that liberated souls

> > > > > > > > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their

separate identities

> > > > > > > > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of

choice does not mean

> > > > > > > > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond

may be put in many

> > > > > > > > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead

of One Water :

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There

are no multiplicity

> > > > > > > > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an

over-simplification of

> > > > > > > > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha

can retain their

> > > > > > > > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is

advaita, because

> > > > > > > > > > only One is in Many.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha

and Brahman as it

> > > > > > > > > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5

understand that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 6)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita

by means of

> > > > > > > > > following statements

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 7)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a

Lord Krishna who

> > > > > > > > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered

that Advaita was

> > > > > > > > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came

abrubtly midway

> > > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya

even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > > > > > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And

Sunil Da is proving

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on

the basis of WRONG

> > > > > > > > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9)

differentiates

> > > > > > > > > Ajna

> > > > > > > > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for

God. After

> > > > > > > > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna.

that is the

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists,

who should not read

> > > > > > > > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic

knowledge should

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord

Krishna did not

> > > > > > > > > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita.

Both are correct at

> > > > > > > > > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya

Lord Krishna took

> > > > > > > > > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and

finally to

> > > > > > > > > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord

krishna tells us not

> > > > > > > > > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad

Gita.

> > > > > > > > > > By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about

Sankhya you are

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

Svetasvatara

> > > > > > > > > Upanishad.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 8)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa

and brahmacharya

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere

initation, but

> > > > > > > > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has

for matrimony.

> > > > > > > > > One

> > > > > > > > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly,

Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !!

Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he

attained

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he

did not want others

> > > > > > > > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and

therefore sanyaasa

> > > > > > > > > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay

the value of

> > > > > > > > > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have

the guts to take

> > > > > > > > > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain

Brahmajnaana without

> > > > > > > > > sanyaasa,

> > > > > > > > > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a

Hindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast

that they have

> > > > > > > > > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely

not Hindus. Lord

> > > > > > > > > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a

sanyashi. ramana

> > > > > > > > > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and

would anybody say

> > > > > > > > > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 9)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who

rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > > > > > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of

brahmacharya. I have told

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried

but kept dancers

> > > > > > > > > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said

Ashvatthaamaa was

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a

brahmachaari and

> > > > > > > > > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete

control of seminal

> > > > > > > > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into

Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > > > > > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a

brahmachaari. One

> > > > > > > > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus

know how to

> > > > > > > > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And

God knows how to

> > > > > > > > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I

am 100 % sure

> > > > > > > > > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about

wine more often

> > > > > > > > > any of the members without any context and you bring

in the subject of

> > > > > > > > > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 10)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2

verse-39 it is said

> > > > > > > > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna

was asked to

> > > > > > > > > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details

of Saamkhya were

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2 : 39

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 3 : 3

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 13 : 24

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 18 : 13

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 9 : 28

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in

detail because it is

> > > > > > > > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to

discuss Brahman

> > > > > > > > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on

Brahmacharya, all

> > > > > > > > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING

garbhaadhaana

> > > > > > > > > samskaara.

> > > > > > > > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I

have met many

> > > > > > > > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a

single karmayogi,

> > > > > > > > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for

kaliyugi grihasthas

> > > > > > > > > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of

their actions.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow

Karma and not

> > > > > > > > > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord

would not have talked

> > > > > > > > > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte

Indian philosophy by

> > > > > > > > > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical

aspects Yoga and

> > > > > > > > > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then

asked what the

> > > > > > > > > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew

earlier and then

> > > > > > > > > took his decision.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 11)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the

superiority of

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in

science and arts

> > > > > > > > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the

superiority of

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be

apprehended, which

> > > > > > > > > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and

without

> > > > > > > > > brahmacharya

> > > > > > > > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous

asuras kicking their

> > > > > > > > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs

grihasthas who

> > > > > > > > > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without

relation of vaasanaa

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I

found it not possible

> > > > > > > > > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of

Vedic Dharma do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled

by some strange

> > > > > > > > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me

egoist & c. I

> > > > > > > > > > never said I am superios to others. It is his

wording. I said and

> > > > > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari,

including all

> > > > > > > > > grihasthas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family,

provided vaasanaa

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes

Svetasvatara

> > > > > > > > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya

literally in it),

> > > > > > > > > > when he will actually read this text instead of

quoting it from some

> > > > > > > > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self

purification is

> > > > > > > > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through

Praanaayaama

> > > > > > > > > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual

Knowledge is not

> > > > > > > > > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > One wqho says that thewre 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.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -SKB

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth

Veda and value of

> > > > > > > > > the nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > To All,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a

majority of

> > > > > > > > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long.

And if truth is

> > > > > > > > > decided by means of votes among those who do not

practixe it, then he is

> > > > > > > > > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse

comment against him or

> > > > > > > > > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas

which are actually not

> > > > > > > > > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong

textbooks of

> > > > > > > > > philosophy.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of

purushas and it leaves it

> > > > > > > > > at that. " >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term

for Purusha is

> > > > > > > > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural

in

> > > > > > > > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version

of Saamkhya (but

> > > > > > > > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni).

dualists interpret the

> > > > > > > > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are

manifold, but Jeeva is

> > > > > > > > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and

Purusha are one each,

> > > > > > > > > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not

plural in Saamkhya is

> > > > > > > > > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a

creation of later

> > > > > > > > > scholars.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the

existence of

> > > > > > > > > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that

Ishvara is the

> > > > > > > > > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus

both Sankhya and

> > > > > > > > > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies

is a favourite

> > > > > > > > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a

is a shortcut of

> > > > > > > > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist

philosophies.

> > > > > > > > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the

" Jna " in Saamkhya

> > > > > > > > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters.

Literally, Jna means " One

> > > > > > > > > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being

and the Soul. since

> > > > > > > > > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman

but attainment of

> > > > > > > > > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but

Saamkhya never

> > > > > > > > > says individual soul is different from the universal,

nor does it say

> > > > > > > > > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this

basis, it is too

> > > > > > > > > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita

says Saamkhya to

> > > > > > > > > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming

theistic

> > > > > > > > > philosophies.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is

Apara-vidya. It is the

> > > > > > > > > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge

or Para-vidya,

> > > > > > > > > that which says that purusha is not different from

Brahman. " >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There are many statements in ancient texts which

call use the term

> > > > > > > > > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are

countless references

> > > > > > > > > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da

wrongly differentiates

> > > > > > > > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on

this misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion

of principal

> > > > > > > > > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later

named as Ishopanishada

> > > > > > > > > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally,

Veda means

> > > > > > > > > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless

without Jnaanakaanda.

> > > > > > > > > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

without being

> > > > > > > > > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

jnaanakaanda with a

> > > > > > > > > proper charater and mindset.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic

philosophy says

> > > > > > > > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The

Brahman. The

> > > > > > > > > question whether emancipated souls retain their

separateness from

> > > > > > > > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in

detail in Brahmasutra

> > > > > > > > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that

liberated souls

> > > > > > > > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their

separate identities

> > > > > > > > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice

does not mean

> > > > > > > > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may

be put in many

> > > > > > > > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of

One Water : this

> > > > > > > > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are

no multiplicity

> > > > > > > > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an

over-simplification of

> > > > > > > > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can

retain their

> > > > > > > > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is

advaita, because

> > > > > > > > > only One is in Many.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita

by means of

> > > > > > > > > following statements :

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge

of Brahman is

> > > > > > > > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This

means who have

> > > > > > > > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given

the nest higher

> > > > > > > > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than

Brahman and there is

> > > > > > > > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya

students have to have the

> > > > > > > > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six

chapters of Bhagavad

> > > > > > > > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the

Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > > > > > > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a

Lord Krishna who

> > > > > > > > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered

that Advaita was

> > > > > > > > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came

abrubtly midway his

> > > > > > > > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya

even once. Kapil Muni

> > > > > > > > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil

Da is proving the

> > > > > > > > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the

basis of WRONG

> > > > > > > > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9)

differentiates Ajna

> > > > > > > > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for

God. After

> > > > > > > > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna.

that is the meaning

> > > > > > > > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who

should not read

> > > > > > > > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic

knowledge should not

> > > > > > > > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get

initiated into

> > > > > > > > > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa

and brahmacharya

> > > > > > > > > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere

initation, but

> > > > > > > > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has

for matrimony. One

> > > > > > > > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly,

Yaajnavalkya attained

> > > > > > > > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya'

s reason was

> > > > > > > > > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since

he attained

> > > > > > > > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did

not want others

> > > > > > > > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and

therefore sanyaasa is

> > > > > > > > > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the

value of sanyaasa

> > > > > > > > > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to

take sanyaasa and

> > > > > > > > > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

sanyaasa, but if one

> > > > > > > > > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama

karmayogi is also a

> > > > > > > > > sanyashi " >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term

sanyaasa.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may

have higher

> > > > > > > > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by

initiation into monkhood

> > > > > > > > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims

superiority of a

> > > > > > > > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true

brahmachari in spirit.

> > > > > > > > > " >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who

rejoices in vaasanaa

> > > > > > > > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of

brahmacharya. I have told in

> > > > > > > > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried

but kept dancers in

> > > > > > > > > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said

Ashvatthaamaa was not a

> > > > > > > > > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a

brahmachaari and was

> > > > > > > > > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete

control of seminal

> > > > > > > > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into

Brahmacharya. One who

> > > > > > > > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a

brahmachaari. One

> > > > > > > > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know

how to

> > > > > > > > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And

God knows how to

> > > > > > > > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2

verse-39 it is said

> > > > > > > > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna

was asked to follow

> > > > > > > > > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of

Saamkhya were not given.

> > > > > > > > > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2 : 39

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 3 : 3

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 5 : 3, 4

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 13 : 24

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 18 : 13

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chapter Verse

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 9 : 28

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not interested in discussing these things in

detail because it is

> > > > > > > > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to

discuss Brahman

> > > > > > > > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on

Brahmacharya, all

> > > > > > > > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING

garbhaadhaana samskaara.

> > > > > > > > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I

have met many

> > > > > > > > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a

single karmayogi,

> > > > > > > > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for

kaliyugi grihasthas who

> > > > > > > > > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their

actions.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

brahmachari is an

> > > > > > > > > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. "

>>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the

superiority of

> > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in

science and arts

> > > > > > > > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the

superiority of

> > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be

apprehended, which is

> > > > > > > > > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and

without brahmacharya

> > > > > > > > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras

kicking their

> > > > > > > > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs

grihasthas who sublimate

> > > > > > > > > libido and beget offsprings without relation of

vaasanaa with the

> > > > > > > > > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it

not possible for

> > > > > > > > > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic

Dharma do not

> > > > > > > > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by

some strange

> > > > > > > > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me

egoist & c. I never

> > > > > > > > > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I

said and still say

> > > > > > > > > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including

all grihasthas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family,

provided vaasanaa

> > > > > > > > > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes

Svetasvatara

> > > > > > > > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya

literally in it),

> > > > > > > > > when he will actually read this text instead of

quoting it from some

> > > > > > > > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self

purification is

> > > > > > > > > impossible without withholding the Praana through

Praanaayaama according

> > > > > > > > > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

attained by

> > > > > > > > > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

@>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth

Veda and value of

> > > > > > > > > the nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear friends,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it.

Sankhya is supreme

> > > > > > > > > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it.

Mundaka Upanishad says

> > > > > > > > > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that

Purusha is eternally

> > > > > > > > > free and only it does not realise its free nature as

long as it is

> > > > > > > > > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the

prakriti is the real doer

> > > > > > > > > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches

of Prakriti and

> > > > > > > > > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of

purushas and it

> > > > > > > > > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas

and the releasaed

> > > > > > > > > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic

and Bhagavad Gita

> > > > > > > > > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows

that Sankhya does

> > > > > > > > > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara "

cannot be proved.

> > > > > > > > > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is

beyond the influence

> > > > > > > > > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic

knowledge or

> > > > > > > > > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not

different from Brahman.

> > > > > > > > > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with

the advaitic

> > > > > > > > > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of

purushas in advaita

> > > > > > > > > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the

knowledge of Brahman is

> > > > > > > > > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This

means who have

> > > > > > > > > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given

the nest higher

> > > > > > > > > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than

Brahman and there is

> > > > > > > > > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya

students have to have the

> > > > > > > > > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six

chapters of Bhagavad

> > > > > > > > > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the

Bhagavad Gita takes us to

> > > > > > > > > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get

initiated into sanyasha

> > > > > > > > > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama

karmayogi is also

> > > > > > > > > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi

Sankaracharya was

> > > > > > > > > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that

every initiated

> > > > > > > > > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be

fake initiated

> > > > > > > > > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to

sanyasha only to

> > > > > > > > > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated

Brahmajnani and he

> > > > > > > > > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was

a life-long

> > > > > > > > > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari

may have higher

> > > > > > > > > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by

initiation into monkhood

> > > > > > > > > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims

superiority of a

> > > > > > > > > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true

brahmachari in spirit. Adi

> > > > > > > > > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was

superior by virtue

> > > > > > > > > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was

the condition before

> > > > > > > > > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got

defeated.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth

Veda and value of

> > > > > > > > > the nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that

Sankhya darshan is

> > > > > > > > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of

Gita which openly

> > > > > > > > > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge,

and if someone

> > > > > > > > > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out

of such

> > > > > > > > > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on

internet. Mr Malla

> > > > > > > > > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and

prakriti, the written text

> > > > > > > > > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya

is often used as a

> > > > > > > > > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the

sense of

> > > > > > > > > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says

Saamkhya is the

> > > > > > > > > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a

knowledge cannot be

> > > > > > > > > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is

just a tip of

> > > > > > > > > iceberg.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those

non-sanyaasis who have

> > > > > > > > > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are

forbidden.

> > > > > > > > > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for

those who have

> > > > > > > > > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the

ultimate word in

> > > > > > > > > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science,

etc, but errs every

> > > > > > > > > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein :

" everyting in the world

> > > > > > > > > is relative to the observer " .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame

of reference. It

> > > > > > > > > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is

called solipcism in

> > > > > > > > > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst

possible school of

> > > > > > > > > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a

solipcist.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound

footings " Mr Malla Ji

> > > > > > > > > should learn it properly.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya.

A real follower

> > > > > > > > > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not

attack Jyotisha

> > > > > > > > > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack

Jyotisha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours

in quantum

> > > > > > > > > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing

equations of

> > > > > > > > > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban

me. It is an

> > > > > > > > > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in

astrology.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com "

harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda

and value of the

> > > > > > > > > nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I would like to acknowledge your learned

nature.There is no doubt

> > > > > > > > > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that

Sankhya darshan is

> > > > > > > > > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the

purush and

> > > > > > > > > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the

same.Adwait vedanta

> > > > > > > > > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri

Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> > > > > > > > > clarify this point.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to

gradually bring

> > > > > > > > > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that

when correctly

> > > > > > > > > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain

all our vedantic

> > > > > > > > > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group

to know what our

> > > > > > > > > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to

express what our

> > > > > > > > > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how

our religius

> > > > > > > > > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell

us is how does our

> > > > > > > > > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the

scientists.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the

scientific

> > > > > > > > > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and

the dark

> > > > > > > > > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush

in scientific

> > > > > > > > > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity,

'everyting in the

> > > > > > > > > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this

observer? where is

> > > > > > > > > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say

PARALOK IS HIS

> > > > > > > > > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to

our future

> > > > > > > > > generations, so they do not become athiests and get

confused by

> > > > > > > > > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search

for the truth,

> > > > > > > > > which in my view has already been explained by our

shastras and

> > > > > > > > > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish

shastra.Please do not

> > > > > > > > > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am

trying to put it

> > > > > > > > > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and

hopefully also

> > > > > > > > > agree with me with the details.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who

established the four

> > > > > > > > > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they

imply

> > > > > > > > > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time

now.I want to

> > > > > > > > > share with you these things.So let us discuss in

humility without the

> > > > > > > > > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Sunil

Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Good write-up.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > A few clarifications please.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists

because Saamkhya did

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal

and used a single

> > > > > > > > > term

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita

Vedic Philosophy

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat

vipraa bahudhaa

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vadanti " .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses

from Sankhya?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 2)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements,

human population

> > > > > > > > > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8

billions, but these are

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have

changed).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Are these your own computations?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 3)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima

siddhi " that two yogis

> > > > > > > > > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with

colour were made in

> > > > > > > > > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the

nuclear structure

> > > > > > > > > was known to the modern science

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > SKB

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth

Veda and value of

> > > > > > > > > the nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant,

without any motion

> > > > > > > > > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no

place without God

> > > > > > > > > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go.

Hence, the idea

> > > > > > > > > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of

Space and Time,

> > > > > > > > > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is

beyond Space, Time

> > > > > > > > > and Matter and all other material properties.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency

of Inactive Pure

> > > > > > > > > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and

expand. The

> > > > > > > > > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation

of Taamasika part

> > > > > > > > > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is

Unknowable and it is even

> > > > > > > > > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him,

which is same as

> > > > > > > > > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in

indivisible and One, and

> > > > > > > > > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the

water in a bucket

> > > > > > > > > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an

individual and

> > > > > > > > > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi

Shankara).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after

Kalpa is Kalpita

> > > > > > > > > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of

brahmaa Ji.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five

senses have five

> > > > > > > > > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which

are called five

> > > > > > > > > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five

Tanmaatraas get manifest as

> > > > > > > > > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively.

These

> > > > > > > > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or

jnaanendriyas. These

> > > > > > > > > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern

science, each element

> > > > > > > > > of modern science is made from different mixtures of

pancha-mahaa-

> > > > > > > > > bhootas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed

nature in

> > > > > > > > > scientific terms?>>>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj

and Tama gunas,

> > > > > > > > > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to

the manifest

> > > > > > > > > material world on the one hand (as described above)

and to the 13

> > > > > > > > > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These

13 constituents,

> > > > > > > > > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola

Prakriti make up the

> > > > > > > > > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy

which was called

> > > > > > > > > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na

hi Saamkhya samam

> > > > > > > > > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared

to be atheistic by

> > > > > > > > > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate

individual soul from the

> > > > > > > > > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which

fits well into

> > > > > > > > > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous

Rgvedic Richaa

> > > > > > > > > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced.

Pure

> > > > > > > > > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and

unchanging.

> > > > > > > > > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness

covered with a

> > > > > > > > > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni

Prakriti and this False

> > > > > > > > > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of

Prakriti. This False

> > > > > > > > > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it

is the cause of

> > > > > > > > > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or

Kaarana Shareera has

> > > > > > > > > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas.

Three antah-karanas

> > > > > > > > > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara

(the feeling of " I " )

> > > > > > > > > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern

intelligence, but

> > > > > > > > > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is

based on inner

> > > > > > > > > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and

not wicked

> > > > > > > > > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas

are 5 karmendriyas

> > > > > > > > > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of

these 13

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or

6227 millions by

> > > > > > > > > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8

billions, but these are

> > > > > > > > > estimates based on trends of century which have

changed).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are

described as White,

> > > > > > > > > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses

the term

> > > > > > > > > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti).

Modern

> > > > > > > > > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of

three coloured

> > > > > > > > > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red

and Black quarks

> > > > > > > > > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to

make hundreds of

> > > > > > > > > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But

" How " these three

> > > > > > > > > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a

mystery (and will

> > > > > > > > > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in

Unknowable). These

> > > > > > > > > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and

Black , but these

> > > > > > > > > colours should not be confused with the colours

perceived by our sensory

> > > > > > > > > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa

manifest as

> > > > > > > > > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks

are " mathematical "

> > > > > > > > > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti

in Saamkhya. A

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > supercomputer

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a

sub-atomic

> > > > > > > > > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God

can decipher the

> > > > > > > > > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer

makes so many

> > > > > > > > > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which

have proved the

> > > > > > > > > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for

mortal faculty of

> > > > > > > > > socalled intelligence.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized

by the fact that

> > > > > > > > > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of

floating point

> > > > > > > > > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8

million seconds or

> > > > > > > > > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks.

The number of

> > > > > > > > > individual computations required in this process is

nearly twenty zeroes

> > > > > > > > > after one !!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com "

harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth

Veda and value of the

> > > > > > > > > nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like

you.What you say is

> > > > > > > > > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature

or Prakriti as

> > > > > > > > > the the witnessed.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > One or two more questions more question to

you.When we think of the

> > > > > > > > > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is

that the

> > > > > > > > > witness(Purush , the observer) or the

witnessed(Prakriti , the

> > > > > > > > > observed)?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed

nature in scientific

> > > > > > > > > terms?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ..

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ,

" Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

> > > > > > > > > ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your

soul, Vinay Ji!

> > > > > > > > > Excellent!!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from

Maatr (Mother), the

> > > > > > > > > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose

constituent is

> > > > > > > > > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a

Witness of the

> > > > > > > > > Material World.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or

Creator of Matter.

> > > > > > > > > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The

Kalpa is a Kalpana of

> > > > > > > > > its Creator.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth

Veda and value of

> > > > > > > > > the nakshatras

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this

universal phenomenon

> > > > > > > > > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of

God' shown by Shri

> > > > > > > > > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be

since it is said the

> > > > > > > > > universal form can be seen with the third eye or

divine vision and

> > > > > > > > > achieved with devotion and entered into by the

devotees?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ,

" Rohiniranjan "

> > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ,

" John " <jr_esq@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ,

Vinay Jha

> > > > > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed

that the opposite

> > > > > > > > > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of

coins, I must show a

> > > > > > > > > third side of this strange coin.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation

which resulted in

> > > > > > > > > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory

to be correct.

> > > > > > > > > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first

implkcation is that

> > > > > > > > > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru

was wrong. Secondly,

> > > > > > > > > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be

finite in

> > > > > > > > > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such

a finite universe

> > > > > > > > > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as

well. And a finite

> > > > > > > > > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because

> > > > > > > > > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will

come when the

> > > > > > > > > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes

fleeing at about

> > > > > > > > > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with

relativistic masses

> > > > > > > > > which will eventually make the presently feeble

gravitational force to

> > > > > > > > > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will

ensue. It is not

> > > > > > > > > a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Universe,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took

me a while to

> > > > > > > > > digest. In another forum, we talked about the

expanding universe and

> > > > > > > > > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies'

expansion outwards. I

> > > > > > > > > stated that it is possible these galaxies will

eventually reach the

> > > > > > > > > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at

this stage

> > > > > > > > > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from

the infinite

> > > > > > > > > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form

or oscillation.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the

galaxies can reach the

> > > > > > > > > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by

the increase of

> > > > > > > > > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach

the speed of light,

> > > > > > > > > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible

for any objects

> > > > > > > > > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >