Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures correctly

July 16, 2009

Dear Mr. Anand,

Have you found the word Advaita and Dvaita in the ancient scriptures? To my

knowledge today we use the words " Dvaita " and " Advaita " in general the way it

has been used by some of the stalwarts and even including the comparatively

recent stalwarts like Swami Vivekananda. Dvaita indicates two pricipal entities

and Advaita indicates one principal entity. When the two entities such as Bhakta

and Bhagavan are considered it is Dvaita. When we consider that sarvam khalvidam

brahma, then it is advaita as it means that everything is only Mrahn\man, ie

there is only one entity. In my opinion it cannot be called wrong when the

stawarts used the word dvaita to show the duality in Sankhya.

Sincerely,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Anand <anand.ghurye wrote:

Anand <anand.ghurye

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 10:25 AM

Dear Friends ,

Samkhya is supposed to be the oldest school of thought . Dvait and Advait comes

under the mimansa school of thought which came much later . How can you take a

classification which came into existence much later and apply it to a much

earlier thought ?

Regards ,

Anand

A. K. Ghurye

-

Sunil Bhattacharjya

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:57 AM

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

To all concerned,

1)

Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana and that he ordered for the

same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya varsha. First he should read

the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope this is clear to him.

2)

I found that Vinay Jha does not know Sanskrit and he has given enough proof of

that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses. In Sutra

1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and prception does not apply to yoga.

In yoga the perception is not true external perception and secondly Yoga does

talk about an Isvara, who is separate from the Purushas. This perception does

not apply to Ishvara as Ishrara cannot be perceived. Sankhya does not bring in

Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be proved. In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is

devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates from

prakriti and becomes omnicient and omnipotent (once again). In that sense there

is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha cannot understand this and that is why he

calls Sankhya as advaita. Sankhya does not deny Ishvara. Sankhya is Godless in

its treatment

ie.it does not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic. Sankhya

speaks of Purusha and Prakriti and because of this duality Sanlkhya is

Dvaita. Even Yoga is Dvaita as it talks about purusha and Ishvara.

3)

In sutra 5.116 what it says that in meditation, in deep sleep and on liberation

(emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra 4.17 to 4.19 what

Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one cannot gain the knowledge

unless there is reflexion. One has to be respectful to the teacher, be dutiful

and must practice to gain the required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya leaves its

dualism like the Advaita does.

4)

Quote

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.

Unquote

Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's book. Now he

took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and misinterpreted it. I

never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is said in the Veda and Vedanta. I

only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and that according to Sankhya the existence of

Ishvara cannot be proved. Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

As regards Ishvara the Yoga sutra says that " Om " is the Vachaka of Ishvara. Yet

Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the same. Rather it says

that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic scholars know that Om is

Brahman.

5)

Quote

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.

Unquote

What is the use of misinterpreted knowledge. It should be rather called a

negative knowledge. Negative knowledge is more harmful than no knowledge.

6)

Quote

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

Unquote

Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that upanishadic

level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in Svetasvatara upanishad.

7)

Quote

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.

Unquote

I am not making a mockery of Gita. Vinay Jha thinks that the highest truths can

be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to take a student step

by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a schoolboy he will tell him

about the quarks and antiquarks etc.straightway and will not start the way it is

done academically step by step through different levels. Probably Vinay Jha

thinks himself more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

8)

Quote

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.

Unquote

Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6 of Svetasvatara upanishad and ypu

will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter you can read other allied

verses such as the verse 5 of chapter 4 and the verses 7, 8 and 12 of chapter 5

of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

9)

Quote

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.

Unquote

In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members will be able

to judge who is what.

Sincerely

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Tue, 7/14/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

[vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites

Scriptures Wrongly !!!

vedic astrology

Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

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

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

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

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

the nakshatras

>

> Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM

>

> 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

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

July 16, 2009

Dear Shri Ananad,

Sankhya does not talk about God and that is whyu people think Sankhya to be

atheistic. At the higher upanishadic level the Sankhya students were taught

about Brahman. Hence we find mention of sankhya in the Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Svetasvatara Upanishad (Chapter 6, verse no. 13) does mention Sankhya but Vinay

Jha challenges this fact and says that Svetasvatara does not mention Sankhya.

Sincerely,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:11 AM

Anand ji,

Read my answer to SKB (Sunil Ji's false charges).

Rgveda says : " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . It is outspoken advaitism.

Saamkhya is eulogised as a means to attain God in upanishadas which are called

Vedanta because the first upanishada (Ishopanishada) is the last chapter of

Yajurveda. Hence, Saamkhya cannot be called atheistic, as some later day

atheists want to prove. Following is a para of my message to another member :

<<<

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.

>>>

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Anand <anand.ghurye@ gmail.com>

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:55:16 PM