Sunil Bhattacharjya and Vinay Jhaa both cite the scriptures correctly!!!

July 16, 2009

, " 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_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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

July 16, 2009

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_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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

July 16, 2009

Malla Ji,

You ask :

<<< " For the mukta where does the prakriti go?

" >>>

If someone is shutting his eyes and thinks it is night, but finds

it is day when he opens his eyes, should we ask " where did the night go

which he saw while his eyes were shut ? "

The answer lies in previous message : " If something exists in

ignorance and vanishes after knowledge, then it must be maayaa and

untruth " .

Before learning " scientific " logy or astroastronomy from

you, you must qualify as a teacher. Tell me how to make the differential

equation of Mean Moon suitable for computiong mean position with precision for

40000 years.

Or, if you are expert in siddhantic astronomy, which you must be because you

talk like an omniscient, please teach me what is the formula of mandaphala

(equation of centre) used for Mars or jupiter in the earlist extant

Suryasiddhantic Tables known as Makaranda-saarani.

If you can answer any of these questions, I will become your student and will

close down all nine panchangas being published on the basis of my software.

If you fail, please stop bragging about your superior knowledge in matters you

do not understand.

-VJ

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

________________________________

" harimalla " <harimalla

Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:34:40 AM

Re: Sunil Bhattacharjya and Vinay Jhaa both cite the

scriptures correctly!!!

, " 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>