Fw: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

July 14, 2009

Sunil Da & To All concerned,

You say:

<<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at

that. " >>>

You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " , and

Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the case

of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara-siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya's habit of deliberately misquoting from

ancient texts is again proven here.

Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

sutras 17-19.

I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

<<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

Upanisha " >>>

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

Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar ???

Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or a

schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

<<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has

to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

of regard for truth.only.>>>

Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

Saamkhya.

I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has a

habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

students who are now heads of departments.

I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me just

because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

going to use your abusive language.

Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

out-of-context misinterpretation.

-VJ

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

vedic astrology , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

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

wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

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

the nakshatras

>

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

>

> Vinay,

>

> Please do not make vague statements.

>

> 1)

>

> Quote

>

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

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

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

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

him

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

actually

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

> philosophy.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

a serious scholar will make.

>

> 2)

>

> Quote

>

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

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

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

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

the

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

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

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

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

> of later scholars.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

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

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

Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the

latter a special purusha.

>

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

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

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

on

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

>

> 3)

>

> Quote

>

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

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

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

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

Saamkhya

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

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

Soul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> theistic philosophies.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

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

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

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

qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

>

> 4)

>

> Quote

>

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

Veda

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

> Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

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

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

of

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

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

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

> Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties

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

> jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

about these big subjects.

>

> 5)

>

> Quote

>

> Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

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

Brahmasutra

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

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

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

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

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

this

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

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

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

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

> only One is in Many.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

>

> 6)

>

> Quote

>

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

following statements

>

> Unquote

>

> Yes an ignorant person will say so:

>

> 7)

>

> Quote

>

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

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

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

his

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

>

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

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

the

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

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

Ajna

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

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

meaning

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

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

not

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took

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

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

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

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

showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

Upanishad.

>

> 8)

>

> Quote

>

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

by

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

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

One

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

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

that

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

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

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

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

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

> sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

sanyaasa,

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

>

> Unquote

>

> Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

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

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

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

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

>

> 9)

>

> Quote

>

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

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

in

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

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

not

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

> was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

>

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

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

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

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

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

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

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

sex so often that it borders on prversity.

>

> 10)

>

> Quote

>

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

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

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

not

> given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

>

> Chapter Verse

>

> 2 : 39

>

> 3 : 3

>

> 5 : 3, 4

>

> 13 : 24

>

> 18 : 13

>

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

>

> Chapter Verse

>

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

>

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

>

> 9 : 28

>

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

>

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

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

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

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

samskaara.

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

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

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

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

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

took his decision.

>

> 11)

>

> Quote

>

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

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

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

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

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

brahmacharya

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

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

with

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

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

not

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

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

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

still

> say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

grihasthas.

>

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

is

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

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

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

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

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

>

> Unquote

>

> One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and

lack of regard for truth.only.

>

> -SKB

>

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

>

> Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16

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

the nakshatras

>

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

>

To All,

>

> Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

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

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

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

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

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

philosophy.

>

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

at that. " >>>

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

scholars.

>

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

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

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

Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

>

> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

philosophies.

>

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

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

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

>

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

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

to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

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

proper charater and mindset.

>

> Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

only One is in Many.

>

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

following statements :

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

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

believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

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

srmon at Kuruksetra !!

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not

be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

>

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

sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

>

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

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

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

can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

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

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

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

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

unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa

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

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

downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

>

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

sanyashi " >>>

>

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

>

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

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

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

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

" >>>

>

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

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

many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in

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

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

therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

>

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

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

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

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

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

differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

>

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

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

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

Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

>

> Chapter Verse

>

> 2 : 39

>

> 3 : 3

>

> 5 : 3, 4

>

> 13 : 24

>

> 18 : 13

>

> Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

>

> Chapter Verse

>

> 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

>

> 6 : 1, 2, 4

>

> 9 : 28

>

> 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

>

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

not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

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

grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara.

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

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

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

cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

>

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

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

>

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

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

emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

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

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

so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate

libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

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

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

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

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

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

that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> grihasthas.

>

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

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

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

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

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

impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according

to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

watching TV shows of five star gurus.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

>

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

>

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

the nakshatras

>

> Dear friends,

>

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

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

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

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

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

the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and

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

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

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

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

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

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

of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

>

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

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

The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

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

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

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

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

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

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

the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

>

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

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

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

an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

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

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

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

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

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

spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood

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

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

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

of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

>

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

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

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

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

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

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

the nakshatras

>

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

>

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

dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

>

> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

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

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

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

should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

>

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

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

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

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

culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

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

iceberg.

>

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

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

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

purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

>

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

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

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

is relative to the observer " .

>

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

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

philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

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

>

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

should learn it properly.

>

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

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

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

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

>

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

>

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

nakshatras

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

>

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

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

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

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

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

clarify this point.

>

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

everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

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

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

religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

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

philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOME,.where is this paralok?

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agree with me with the details.

>

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

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

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

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

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

>

> Regards,

>

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Vinay,

>

> >

>

> > Good write-up.

>

> >

>

> > A few clarifications please.

>

> >

>

> > 1)

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

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

not

>

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

term

>

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

>

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

>

> > vadanti " .

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > 2)

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

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

cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

>

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

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > Are these your own computations?

>

> >

>

> > 3)

>

> >

>

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

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

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

was known to the modern science

>

> >

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> >

>

> > SKB

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

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

the nakshatras

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Malla Ji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

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

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

of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

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

and Matter and all other material properties.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part

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

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

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

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

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

Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bhootas.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

scientific terms?>>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

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

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

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

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

24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

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

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

dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the

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

the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

" ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

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

Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

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

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

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

rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has

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

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

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

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

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

intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas

and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

> 13

>

> >

>

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

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

estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

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

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

>

> > supercomputer

>

> >

>

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

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

intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

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

quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of

socalled intelligence.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or

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

individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes

after one !!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > -VJ

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

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

nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Vinayji,

>

> >

>

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

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

the the witnessed.

>

> >

>

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

alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

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

observed)?

>

> >

>

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

terms?

>

> >

>

> > Regards,

>

> >

>

> > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ..

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

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

Excellent!!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Best regards,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

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

Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

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

Material World.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

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

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

its Creator.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

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

the nakshatras

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear sirs,

>

> >

>

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

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

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

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

achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

>

> >

>

> > > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Hmmm...!

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

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

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

third side of this strange coin.

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses

which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

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

a new idea in science, and is

> known as Oscillating

>

> >

>

> > > > Universe,

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

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

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

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

stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

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

everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

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

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

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

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

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

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

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

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > JR

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

July 16, 2009

vedic astrology , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

wrote:

>

> To All Concerned,

>

> SKB (Mr Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) is again displaying his old habit of

citing ancient texts falsely. Here are proofs of his deliberate

falsehoods :

>

> SKB says <<< " Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana " >>>

>

> It is a lie, I never said so. I said Vayu Purana is not present in my

residence at present, and I am unable to visit libraries because I am

busy in developing software. It does not mean I never read Vayu Purana.

As for SKB's sincerity and honesty in carrying out a fair discourse,

here are some examples of his falsehoods :

>

> SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha

(being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years

as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh

(together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he

avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly quoted

Vishnu Purana out of context.

>

> When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him, he

changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana.

>

> When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again and

said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu

Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I

have ordered for it, which he knows ).

>

> SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring to

preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned above.

When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda Purana

or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate with

a dishonest person.

>

> Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members here

that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting

scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? Recently, he cited

Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I

produce correct citations from ancient texts.

>

> In previous mesaage SKB said <<< " He (Kapil muni) said that Ishvara is

" Asiddha " and then left it at that. He never said the purusha is

Ishvara. " >>>

>

> Even after I supplied detailed proofs to the contrary, SKB still

falsely says <<< " Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be

proved. " >>>

>

> 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 " . This

last sutra by Kapil Muni clearly states that the existence of Ishvara is

thus proven (although Ishvara cannot be directly perceived), but SKB

falsely says " Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be

proved " . Saamkhya, is freely available on internet (eg,

http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/samkhya.htm ).

>

> <<< In Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and

perception does not apply to yoga. " >>>

>

> SKB again displays his deficiency in interpreting Sanskrit texts.

Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 apply not only to perception but to yoga too (sutra

90-91). Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses.

>

> He says :

>

> <<< " In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that Prakriti is not compelled

to work yet it is devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is absorbed

in Prakriti separates from prakriti and becomes omnicient and omnipotent

(once again). In that sense there is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha

cannot understand this.>>>

>

> It is a blatant lie by SKB. 3.55 to 3.57 clearly say that these

sutras are about Ishvara ( " ...ishvara- siddhih siddhah " ) , but SKB

infers that it is about purusha which becomes Lord ( " Ishvara " ) after

being free from Prakriti !! If this atheistic interpretation is

accepted, then there will be as many omniscient and omnipotent Ishvaras

as there are emancipated souls !! These sutras say Prakriti is not a

Work, because God does not work, but Prakriti is Paravasha, ie in

control of Ishvara who is sarvavit (omniscient) and sarvakartaa

(performer of all works because of omniscience & c), " in this way the

existence of Ishvara is proven " .

>

> It is wrong to translate Ishvara as " Lord " here, and say that

individual Jeeva is Lord of everything, sarvakartaa, sarvavit, & c.

>

> Purushas are many. Ishvara is also a special Purusha. But all these

Purushas are same in quality (= Brahma-roopataa) . No Vedic philosophy

calls Prakriti a work of Ishvara. Ishvara is not the ultimate Being,

which is Brahman. After Moksha (and in Samaadhi and in Sushupti) , the

individual soul attains Brahma-roopataa (Saamkhya, 5-116. Thus,

theessential quality of purushas is brahma-roopataa. Before attaining

the Brahman, there is duality between Prakriti and Purusha. But it ends

with Brahma-roopataa : Prakriti ceases to exist there at all : hence the

ultimate goal of Saamkhya leads to advaita state of Brahma-roopataa. In

the light of Kapil muni's own statements quoted here, it is nonsense to

say " Sankhya is Godless in its treatment ie.it does not speak of a role

of God but it is not atheistic. " Saamkhya speaks of Ishvara as the

sarva-kartaam, but SKB says there is no role for Ishvara. Saamkhya talks

of Brahma-roopataa as the ultimate goal (moksha)

> of a soul. It is a proof of the fact that all Purushaas are basically

same as Brahman in essence but are manifest as different purushas. There

is no dvaita between purushas and Brahman. Ishvara is also a part of it.

As for Prakriti, it is unconscious (jada) and devoid of self-motion (it

is " paravasha " , ie controlled by Ishvara). The only role of Prakriti is

to provide bhoga to 'bounded purushas' (=jeevas) and moksha to those who

have overcome desires. Thus, Prakriti exists only for those who are

bound due to desires, but ceases to exist for those who have attained

Moksha and attained Brahmaroopataa. As Brahman is Truth, Praktiti must

be untruth, avidyaa and maayaa. But it imust exist for providing bhoga

and moksha to purushas. To regard this inanimate Prakriti as at par with

Brahman and find dvaita in Saamkhya is one trend amonh philosophers, but

to reject the Reality of Prakriti and accept only the Brahman as well as

purushas who are essentially of

> same stuff as the Brahman as the Reality is another trend. The

advaita of Vedanta cannot reject the existence of Prakriti for those who

have not attained moksha. Since there are infinite number of bounded

purushas, Prakriti also is infinite in time, and will always exist. In

this limited sense, it can be said to be a sign of dualism. Butif one

says Prakriti is also accepted to be As True as Brahmanis a

misinterpretation, because pure Consciousness as the only Reality is the

basis of Saamkhya and Prakriti is described as an inferior, controlled,

unconscious and inanimate agency.

>

> I said " 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. " He defends his wrong remark about Gita by saying that

first six chapters are LOWER type of knowledge and next chapters are

HIGHER knowledge !!! SKB does not know that these first six chapters

contain some of the best gems for which Gita is famous.

>

> <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that

upanishadic level.>>>

>

> Yes. But Shvetashvatara Upanishada once says that by knowing the Deva

who is attainable by means of Saamkhyayoga, a purusha is freed from all

bounds. It is not that Saamkhya which SKB speaks of : he says Saamkhya

has no role for God and is dualist. But Shvetashvatara Upanishada talks

of something different : it says Saamkhyayoga is a means of attaining

God. How can an atheistic philosophy lead one to God ?? My assertion is

that Saamkhya is actually theistic, but many atheists have

misinterpreted it. Saamkhya states that Brahma-roopataa is the state of

moksha, which proves that attainment of Supreme God is the aim of

Saamkhya, and same is the statement of Shvetashvatara Upanishada. But

SKB refuses to accept that Saamkhya has any role for God, Who is the aim

of Saamkhya.

>

> For these differences of opinions, SKB has started using abusing

remarks, which is the reakl proof of his nature !! But I have supplied

enough evidences of his wrong citations and deliberately false

interpretations of ancient texts.

>

> -VJ

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

>

> ________________________________

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

> vedic astrology

> Cc: ;

vedic_research_institute

> Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:52:07 AM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil

Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

>

> To all concerned,

>

> 1)

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

ordered for the same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya varsha.

First he should read the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope this

is clear to him.

>

> 2)

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

proof of that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets

verses. In Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and

prception does not apply to yoga. In yoga the perception is not true

external perception and secondly Yoga does talk about an Isvara, who is

separate from the Purushas. This perception does not apply to Ishvara as

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

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

Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is devoted to the purusha. The

purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates from prakriti and

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

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

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

Godless in its treatment

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

Sankhya

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

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

>

> 3)

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

liberation (emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra

4.17 to 4.19 what Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one

cannot gain the knowledge unless there is reflexion. One has to be

respectful to the teacher, be dutiful and must practice to gain the

required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya leaves its dualism like the

Advaita does.

>

> 4)

>

> Quote

>

> I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do not

want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your denial

of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

>

> reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

>

> Unquote

>

> Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's

book. Now he took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and

misinterpreted it. I never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is

said in the Veda and Vedanta. I only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and

that according to Sankhya the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved.

Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

>

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

Ishvara. Yet Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the

same. Rather it says that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic

scholars know that Om is Brahman.

>

> 5)

>

> Quote

>

> You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

>

> Unquote

>

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

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

knowledge.

>

> 6)

>

> Quote

>

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

"

>

> Unquote

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that

upanishadic level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in

Svetasvatara upanishad.

>

> 7)

>

> Quote

>

> You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

>

> and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or

a

>

> schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

>

> Unquote

>

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

truths can be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to

take a student step by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a

schoolboy he will tell him about the quarks and antiquarks

etc.straightway and will not start the way it is done academically step

by step through different levels. Probably Vinay Jha thinks himself more

knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

>

> 8)

>

> Quote

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about soul

and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be falsely

cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

>

> Saamkhya.

>

> Unquote

>

> Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6 of Svetasvatara

upanishad and ypu will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter you

can read other allied verses such as the verse 5 of chapter 4 and the

verses 7, 8 and 12 of chapter 5 of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

>

> 9)

>

> Quote

>

> Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

out-of-context misinterpretation.

>

> Unquote

>

> In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members

will be able to judge who is what.

>

> Sincerely

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

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

>

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

> [vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil

Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> vedic astrology

> Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

>

> Sunil Da & To All concerned,

>

> You say:

>

> <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it

at

>

> that. " >>>

>

> You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

>

> meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " ,

and

>

> Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

>

> pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because of

>

> your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

>

> without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the

case

>

> of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

>

> defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

>

> 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

>

> Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

>

> pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

>

> Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

>

> Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

>

> Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit) and

>

> Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

>

> And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus the

>

> existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

>

> Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

>

> ancient texts is again proven here.

>

> Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

>

> Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

>

> Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

>

> Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

>

> they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

>

> Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana failed

>

> in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in ch-4,

>

> sutras 17-19.

>

> I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made out

>

> of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

>

> you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do

not

>

> want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your

denial

>

> of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

>

> reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

>

> Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply clear.

>

> You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

>

> scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

>

> spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

>

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

>

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

>

> Upanisha " >>>

>

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

"

>

> Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar

???

>

> Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately ?

>

> You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are Dvaita

>

> and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite or

a

>

> schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

>

> <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

has

>

> to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad speaks

>

> about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack

>

> of regard for truth.only.> >>

>

> Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can see

>

> whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

>

> matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about

soul

>

> and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be

falsely

>

> cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

>

> Saamkhya.

>

> I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who has

a

>

> habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has no

>

> training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

>

> students who are now heads of departments.

>

> I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me

just

>

> because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting ancient

>

> texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

>

> further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

>

> going to use your abusive language.

>

> Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

>

> will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

>

> reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

>

> out-of-context misinterpretation.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

>

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

>

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

>

> the nakshatras

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Vinay,

>

> >

>

> > Please do not make vague statements.

>

> >

>

> > 1)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

he

>

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

>

> him

>

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

>

> actually

>

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

>

> > philosophy.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

what

>

> a serious scholar will make.

>

> >

>

> > 2)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

(but

>

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

>

> the

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

creation

>

> > of later scholars.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

He

>

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

as

>

> Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling

the

>

> latter a special purusha.

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> on

>

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

>

> >

>

> > 3)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

of

>

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

>

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

>

> Saamkhya

>

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

>

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

>

> Soul.

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

Gita

>

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

aming

>

> > theistic philosophies.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

free

>

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

knowledge

>

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

>

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

are

>

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

your

>

> qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

>

> >

>

> > 4)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> Veda

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> of

>

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

>

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

Veda

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

your

>

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

>

> about these big subjects.

>

> >

>

> > 5)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

> > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

>

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

>

> Brahmasutra

>

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

souls

>

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

identities

>

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

>

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

many

>

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

>

> this

>

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

multiplicity

>

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

>

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

>

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

because

>

> > only One is in Many.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

it

>

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

>

> >

>

> > 6)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> following statements

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

>

> >

>

> > 7)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> his

>

> > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

>

> >

>

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

Muni

>

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

>

> the

>

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

WRONG

>

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

>

> Ajna

>

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

>

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

>

> meaning

>

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

read

>

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

>

> not

>

> > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

at

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

>

> Upanishad.

>

> >

>

> > 8)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> by

>

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

>

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

>

> One

>

> > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya

attained

>

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

>

> that

>

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

>

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

others

>

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

sanyaasa

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> sanyaasa,

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> >

>

> > 9)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

> in

>

> > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept

dancers

>

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

>

> not

>

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

and

>

> > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

seminal

>

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

who

>

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

>

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

>

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

to

>

> > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> sex so often that it borders on prversity.

>

> >

>

> > 10)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> not

>

> > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chapter Verse

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 2 : 39

>

> >

>

> > 3 : 3

>

> >

>

> > 5 : 3, 4

>

> >

>

> > 13 : 24

>

> >

>

> > 18 : 13

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chapter Verse

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

>

> >

>

> > 6 : 1, 2, 4

>

> >

>

> > 9 : 28

>

> >

>

> > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

is

>

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

>

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

all

>

> > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

>

> samskaara.

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

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

>

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

talked

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

then

>

> took his decision.

>

> >

>

> > 11)

>

> >

>

> > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

which

>

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

>

> brahmacharya

>

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

>

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

>

> > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

>

> with

>

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

possible

>

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

>

> not

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> still

>

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

>

> grihasthas.

>

> >

>

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

>

> is

>

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

>

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

it),

>

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

>

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

>

> > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

>

> > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

>

> has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

>

> speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance

and

>

> lack of regard for truth.only.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > -SKB

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

>

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

>

> the nakshatras

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > To All,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

is

>

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

or

>

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

not

>

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

>

> philosophy.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

it

>

> at that. " >>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

the

>

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

>

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

each,

>

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

is

>

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

>

> scholars.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

and

>

> Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

Saamkhya

>

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

" One

>

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

since

>

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

of

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

>

> philosophies.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

misunderstood

>

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

>

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

Ishopanishada

>

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

>

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

>

> The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

>

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

a

>

> proper charater and mindset.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

>

> question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

>

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

Brahmasutra

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

this

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> only One is in Many.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> following statements :

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

is

>

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

the

>

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

>

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

to

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

his

>

> srmon at Kuruksetra !!

>

> >

>

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

Muni

>

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

the

>

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

>

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

Ajna

>

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

>

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

meaning

>

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

>

> it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

not

>

> be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

One

>

> can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

is

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> sanyashi " >>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into

monkhood

>

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

>

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

>

> " >>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

in

>

> many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers

in

>

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

>

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

was

>

> therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

seminal

>

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

who

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

follow

>

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

given.

>

> Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chapter Verse

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 2 : 39

>

> >

>

> > 3 : 3

>

> >

>

> > 5 : 3, 4

>

> >

>

> > 13 : 24

>

> >

>

> > 18 : 13

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chapter Verse

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

>

> >

>

> > 6 : 1, 2, 4

>

> >

>

> > 9 : 28

>

> >

>

> > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

is

>

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

>

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

>

> grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

samskaara.

>

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

>

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

>

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

who

>

> cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

is

>

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

>

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

>

> parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

sublimate

>

> libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

never

>

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

>

> that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

>

> > grihasthas.

>

> >

>

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

vaasanaa

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

> impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

according

>

> to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

>

> watching TV shows of five star gurus.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > -VJ

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

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

>

> the nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear friends,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

>

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

eternally

>

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

>

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

doer

>

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

>

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

>

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

releasaed

>

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

>

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

>

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

proved.

>

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

influence

>

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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

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

Brahman.

>

> The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

is

>

> no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have

the

>

> next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

>

> Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us

to

>

> the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha

>

> to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is

also

>

> a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya

was

>

> an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

>

> sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

>

> sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only

to

>

> claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he

>

> gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

>

> ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

>

> spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into

monkhood

>

> one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a

>

> brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

Adi

>

> Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by

virtue

>

> of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

>

> >

>

> > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition

before

>

> the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> >

>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

>

> the nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

>

> dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

>

> declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

>

> thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

>

> discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla

>

> should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written

text

>

> is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as

a

>

> synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

>

> Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

>

> culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

>

> summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

>

> iceberg.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have

>

> not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

>

> Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

>

> purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

>

> everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs

every

>

> now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world

>

> is relative to the observer " .

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It

>

> is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

>

> philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

>

> philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

>

> should learn it properly.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real

follower

>

> of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack

Jyotisha

>

> as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

>

> chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

>

> Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

>

> astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > -VJ

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ============ ========= ========= ========= = ===

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

>

> nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Jhaaji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

>

> about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan

is

>

> dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

>

> prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta

>

> says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

>

> clarify this point.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

>

> everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

>

> interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic

>

> philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what

our

>

> religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

>

> religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

>

> philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does

our

>

> philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

>

> terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

>

> qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

>

> terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in

the

>

> world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is

>

> he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

>

> HOME,.where is this paralok?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

>

> generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

>

> science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

>

> which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

>

> especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do

not

>

> think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put

it

>

> on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

>

> agree with me with the details.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four

>

> dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

>

> astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

>

> share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the

>

> sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Regards,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

>

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Vinay,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Good write-up.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > A few clarifications please.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > 1)

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did

>

> not

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single

>

> term

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > vadanti " .

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > 2)

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

>

> cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Are these your own computations?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > 3)

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two

yogis

>

> observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in

>

> the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear

structure

>

> was known to the modern science

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Best wishes,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > SKB

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value

of

>

> the nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Malla Ji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion

>

> or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God

>

> and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea

>

> of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

>

> which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space,

Time

>

> and Matter and all other material properties.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure

>

> Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

>

> panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika

part

>

> of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is

even

>

> sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same

as

>

> Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One,

and

>

> it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket

>

> and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

>

> Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita

>

> by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

>

> subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five

>

> Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest

as

>

> Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

>

> pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These

>

> pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element

>

> of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

>

> bhootas.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

>

> scientific terms?>>>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas,

>

> which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

>

> material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

>

> constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents,

>

> plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the

>

> 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

>

> culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya

samam

>

> jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic

by

>

> dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from

the

>

> universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into

>

> the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

>

> " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

>

> Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

>

> Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a

>

> false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this

False

>

> Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False

>

> Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of

>

> rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera

has

>

> 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three

antah-karanas

>

> are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of

" I " )

>

> and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence,

but

>

> original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner

>

> tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

>

> intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5

karmendriyas

>

> and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

>

> > 13

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions

by

>

> even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are

>

> estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White,

>

> Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

>

> Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

>

> Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

>

> quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks

>

> by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds

of

>

> sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three

>

> coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will

>

> always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

>

> coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these

>

> colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our

sensory

>

> organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

>

> Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are

" mathematical "

>

> categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > supercomputer

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

>

> particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

>

> intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

>

> hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

>

> quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty

of

>

> socalled intelligence.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that

>

> modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

>

> operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds

or

>

> 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

>

> individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty

zeroes

>

> after one !!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > -VJ

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > ============ ========= ===== ==

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the

>

> nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Vinayji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say

is

>

> quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as

>

> the the witnessed.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of

the

>

> alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

>

> witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

>

> observed)?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific

>

> terms?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > ..

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@

>

> ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

>

> Excellent!!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Best regards,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Rohiniranjan

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the

>

> Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is

>

> Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

>

> Material World.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter.

>

> Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana

of

>

> its Creator.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value

of

>

> the nakshatras

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Dear sirs,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon

>

> discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by

Shri

>

> Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said

the

>

> universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

>

> achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Hari Malla

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

>

> <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > Hmmm...!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@>

wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

>

> <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the

opposite

>

> is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a

>

> third side of this strange coin.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted

in

>

> a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

>

> Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is

that

>

> the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong.

Secondly,

>

> a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

>

> space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite

universe

>

> with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a

finite

>

> mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too,

because

>

> a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

>

> expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about

>

> the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic

masses

>

> which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to

>

> overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is

not

>

> a new idea in science, and is

>

> > known as Oscillating

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > Universe,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

>

> digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

>

> the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards.

I

>

> stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

>

> speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

>

> everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

>

> eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach

the

>

> speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of

>

> their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of

light,

>

> the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any

objects

>

> to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > JR

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > >

July 16, 2009

vedic astrology , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Friends,

>

> If Vinay Jha is so confident that he had given proof of Divya varsha

as equal to 360 human years it is commojn sense that he should resend

that mail and close the discussions.

>

> When we are discussing Sankhya the discussions should be primarily

with material from Sankhya. Sakhya says Ishvara is asiddha. Yoga says

Ishvara is there but he is a special purusha. The Vedanta says

everything is Brahman. Vedanta is taught to higher students of

Sanlkhya and then they find that liberated soul is not other than the

Brahman. This how the Indian philosophy has been structured. Vinay Jha

is new to this and that is why he has confusions but he is too egoistic

to admit that. He will bring yoga in discussions of Sankhya to prove

that Sankhya involves Ishvara.

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Thu, 7/16/09, vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16

> [vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil

Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, July 16, 2009, 2:53 AM

>

> vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > To All Concerned,

> >

> > SKB (Mr Sunil K. Bhattacharjya) is again displaying his old habit of

> citing ancient texts falsely. Here are proofs of his deliberate

> falsehoods :

> >

> > SKB says <<< " Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana " >>>

> >

> > It is a lie, I never said so. I said Vayu Purana is not present in

my

> residence at present, and I am unable to visit libraries because I am

> busy in developing software. It does not mean I never read Vayu

Purana.

> As for SKB's sincerity and honesty in carrying out a fair discourse,

> here are some examples of his falsehoods :

> >

> > SKB cited Mahabharata (MBh) for a wrong definition of Divya Varsha

> (being equal to a solar year instead of being equal to 360 human years

> as mentioned in ancient texts). When I sent correct citations from MBh

> (together with citations from all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he

> avoided any talk on MBh and Siddhant-Jyotisha texts, and wrongly

quoted

> Vishnu Purana out of context.

> >

> > When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana to disprove him,

he

> changed stance and said Bhagavata Purana is the " highest " Purana.

> >

> > When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he changed stance again

and

> said Vayu Purana is the " only " proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu

> Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana (

I

> have ordered for it, which he knows ).

> >

> > SKB has a habit of taking a verse out of context without referring

to

> preceding verses, which he did in the case of all texts mentioned

above.

> When I will send verses from Vayu Purana, he will jump to Skanda

Purana

> or to some other text. There will be no end of this type of debate

with

> a dishonest person.

> >

> > Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince members

here

> that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting

> scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas? Recently, he cited

> Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I

> produce correct citations from ancient texts.

> >

> > In previous mesaage SKB said <<< " He (Kapil muni) said that Ishvara

is

> " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He never said the purusha is

> Ishvara. " >>>

> >

> > Even after I supplied detailed proofs to the contrary, SKB still

> falsely says <<< " Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as Ishvara cannot

be

> proved. " >>>

> >

> > 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 " . This

> last sutra by Kapil Muni clearly states that the existence of Ishvara

is

> thus proven (although Ishvara cannot be directly perceived), but SKB

> falsely says " Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as Ishvara cannot be

> proved " . Saamkhya, is freely available on internet (eg,

> http://is1.mum. edu/vedicreserve /samkhya. htm ).

> >

> > <<< In Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and

> perception does not apply to yoga. " >>>

> >

> > SKB again displays his deficiency in interpreting Sanskrit texts.

> Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 apply not only to perception but to yoga too (sutra

> 90-91). Because of this ignorance he misinterprets verses.

> >

> > He says :

> >

> > <<< " In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that Prakriti is not

compelled

> to work yet it is devoted to the purusha. The purusha which is

absorbed

> in Prakriti separates from prakriti and becomes omnicient and

omnipotent

> (once again). In that sense there is a Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha

> cannot understand this.>>>

> >

> > It is a blatant lie by SKB. 3.55 to 3.57 clearly say that these

> sutras are about Ishvara ( " ...ishvara- siddhih siddhah " ) , but SKB

> infers that it is about purusha which becomes Lord ( " Ishvara " ) after

> being free from Prakriti !! If this atheistic interpretation is

> accepted, then there will be as many omniscient and omnipotent

Ishvaras

> as there are emancipated souls !! These sutras say Prakriti is not a

> Work, because God does not work, but Prakriti is Paravasha, ie in

> control of Ishvara who is sarvavit (omniscient) and sarvakartaa

> (performer of all works because of omniscience & c), " in this way the

> existence of Ishvara is proven " .

> >

> > It is wrong to translate Ishvara as " Lord " here, and say that

> individual Jeeva is Lord of everything, sarvakartaa, sarvavit, & c.

> >

> > Purushas are many. Ishvara is also a special Purusha. But all these

> Purushas are same in quality (= Brahma-roopataa) . No Vedic philosophy

> calls Prakriti a work of Ishvara. Ishvara is not the ultimate Being,

> which is Brahman. After Moksha (and in Samaadhi and in Sushupti) , the

> individual soul attains Brahma-roopataa (Saamkhya, 5-116. Thus,

> theessential quality of purushas is brahma-roopataa. Before attaining

> the Brahman, there is duality between Prakriti and Purusha. But it

ends

> with Brahma-roopataa : Prakriti ceases to exist there at all : hence

the

> ultimate goal of Saamkhya leads to advaita state of Brahma-roopataa.

In

> the light of Kapil muni's own statements quoted here, it is nonsense

to

> say " Sankhya is Godless in its treatment ie.it does not speak of a

role

> of God but it is not atheistic. " Saamkhya speaks of Ishvara as the

> sarva-kartaam, but SKB says there is no role for Ishvara. Saamkhya

talks

> of Brahma-roopataa as the ultimate goal (moksha)

> > of a soul. It is a proof of the fact that all Purushaas are

basically

> same as Brahman in essence but are manifest as different purushas.

There

> is no dvaita between purushas and Brahman. Ishvara is also a part of

it.

> As for Prakriti, it is unconscious (jada) and devoid of self-motion

(it

> is " paravasha " , ie controlled by Ishvara). The only role of Prakriti

is

> to provide bhoga to 'bounded purushas' (=jeevas) and moksha to those

who

> have overcome desires. Thus, Prakriti exists only for those who are

> bound due to desires, but ceases to exist for those who have attained

> Moksha and attained Brahmaroopataa. As Brahman is Truth, Praktiti must

> be untruth, avidyaa and maayaa. But it imust exist for providing bhoga

> and moksha to purushas. To regard this inanimate Prakriti as at par

with

> Brahman and find dvaita in Saamkhya is one trend amonh philosophers,

but

> to reject the Reality of Prakriti and accept only the Brahman as well

as

> purushas who are essentially of

> > same stuff as the Brahman as the Reality is another trend. The

> advaita of Vedanta cannot reject the existence of Prakriti for those

who

> have not attained moksha. Since there are infinite number of bounded

> purushas, Prakriti also is infinite in time, and will always exist. In

> this limited sense, it can be said to be a sign of dualism. Butif one

> says Prakriti is also accepted to be As True as Brahmanis a

> misinterpretation, because pure Consciousness as the only Reality is

the

> basis of Saamkhya and Prakriti is described as an inferior,

controlled,

> unconscious and inanimate agency.

> >

> > I said " 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. " He defends his wrong remark about Gita by saying that

> first six chapters are LOWER type of knowledge and next chapters are

> HIGHER knowledge !!! SKB does not know that these first six chapters

> contain some of the best gems for which Gita is famous.

> >

> > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that

> upanishadic level.>>>

> >

> > Yes. But Shvetashvatara Upanishada once says that by knowing the

Deva

> who is attainable by means of Saamkhyayoga, a purusha is freed from

all

> bounds. It is not that Saamkhya which SKB speaks of : he says Saamkhya

> has no role for God and is dualist. But Shvetashvatara Upanishada

talks

> of something different : it says Saamkhyayoga is a means of attaining

> God. How can an atheistic philosophy lead one to God ?? My assertion

is

> that Saamkhya is actually theistic, but many atheists have

> misinterpreted it. Saamkhya states that Brahma-roopataa is the state

of

> moksha, which proves that attainment of Supreme God is the aim of

> Saamkhya, and same is the statement of Shvetashvatara Upanishada. But

> SKB refuses to accept that Saamkhya has any role for God, Who is the

aim

> of Saamkhya.

> >

> > For these differences of opinions, SKB has started using abusing

> remarks, which is the reakl proof of his nature !! But I have supplied

> enough evidences of his wrong citations and deliberately false

> interpretations of ancient texts.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= == ======

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

> > vedic astrology

> > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology;

> vedic_research_ institute

> > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:52:07 AM

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil

> Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> >

> > To all concerned,

> >

> > 1)

> > Vinay Jha says that he has not read the Vayu purana and that he

> ordered for the same and yet he goes on rattling about the divya

varsha.

> First he should read the Vayu pyurana and refute it if he can.Hope

this

> is clear to him.

> >

> > 2)

> > I found that Vinay Jha does not know Sanskrit and he has given

enough

> proof of that ealier also. Because of this ignorance he misinterprets

> verses. In Sutra 1.87 to 1.92 Kapila talks about perception and

> prception does not apply to yoga. In yoga the perception is not true

> external perception and secondly Yoga does talk about an Isvara, who

is

> separate from the Purushas. This perception does not apply to Ishvara

as

> Ishrara cannot be perceived. Sankhya does not bring in Ishvara as

> Ishvara cannot be proved. In sutra 3.55 to 3.57 Kapila says that

> Prakriti is not compelled to work yet it is devoted to the purusha.

The

> purusha which is absorbed in Prakriti separates from prakriti and

> becomes omnicient and omnipotent (once again). In that sense there is

a

> Lord (of prakriti). Vinay Jha cannot understand this and that is why

he

> calls Sankhya as advaita. Sankhya does not deny Ishvara. Sankhya is

> Godless in its treatment

> > ie.it does not speak of a role of God but it is not atheistic.

> Sankhya

> > speaks of Purusha and Prakriti and because of this duality Sanlkhya

is

> > Dvaita. Even Yoga is Dvaita as it talks about purusha and Ishvara.

> >

> > 3)

> > In sutra 5.116 what it says that in meditation, in deep sleep and on

> liberation (emancipitation) there is the likeness of Brahman. In Stra

> 4.17 to 4.19 what Kaplia says is that just by hearing the teacher one

> cannot gain the knowledge unless there is reflexion. One has to be

> respectful to the teacher, be dutiful and must practice to gain the

> required knowledge. But nowhere Sankhya leaves its dualism like the

> Advaita does.

> >

> > 4)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made

out

> of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and yet

> you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do

not

> want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your

denial

> of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> >

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Earlier what he wrote proved that Vinay Jha did not read Kapila's

> book. Now he took it as an insult and hurriedly read Sankhya-sutra and

> misinterpreted it. I never denied that Purusha is Ishvara as that is

> said in the Veda and Vedanta. I only said that Sankhya is Dvaita and

> that according to Sankhya the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved.

> Vinay Jha is being blinded by his anger.

> >

> > As regards Ishvara the Yoga sutra says that " Om " is the Vachaka of

> Ishvara. Yet Yoga sutra does not say that purusha and Ishwara are the

> same. Rather it says that Ishvara is a special purusha. But all Vedic

> scholars know that Om is Brahman.

> >

> > 5)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > What is the use of misinterpreted knowledge. It should be rather

> called a negative knowledge. Negative knowledge is more harmful than

no

> knowledge.

> >

> > 6)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even

once.

> "

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishad deals with Sankhya from the higher that

> upanishadic level. Now Vinay Jha says there is no Sankhya in

> Svetasvatara upanishad.

> >

> > 7)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are

Dvaita

> >

> > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite

or

> a

> >

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > I am not making a mockery of Gita. Vinay Jha thinks that the highest

> truths can be taught straightway to a student and there is not need to

> take a student step by step. If he has to teach atomic streucture to a

> schoolboy he will tell him about the quarks and antiquarks

> etc.straightway and will not start the way it is done academically

step

> by step through different levels. Probably Vinay Jha thinks himself

more

> knowledgeable than Lord Krishna.

> >

> > 8)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can

see

> whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The subject

> matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about

soul

> and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be

falsely

> cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> >

> > Saamkhya.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > Please look at the verse No. 13 of Chapter 6 of Svetasvatara

> upanishad and ypu will find the mention of Sankhya there. Thereafter

you

> can read other allied verses such as the verse 5 of chapter 4 and the

> verses 7, 8 and 12 of chapter 5 of the Svetasvatara upanishad.

> >

> > 9)

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > In the light of my reply and specifically to Sl. No. 8 the members

> will be able to judge who is what.

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Tue, 7/14/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > [vedic astrology] Fw: Re: Re: Sunil

> Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

> > vedic astrology

> > Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:54 AM

> >

> > Sunil Da & To All concerned,

> >

> > You say:

> >

> > <<< " He (Kapil Muni) said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it

> at

> >

> > that. " >>>

> >

> > You are citing it out of context with a view to invert the original

> >

> > meaning. The context in ch-1 sutras 87-92 is " pratyaksha pramaana " ,

> and

> >

> > Kapil Muni says that Ishvava cannot be proven through senses (ie,

> >

> > pratyaksha pramaana), which you are taking out of context. Because

of

> >

> > your lack of any knowledge of Sanskrit, you take verses and sutras

> >

> > without going into the full context. You applied same trick in the

> case

> >

> > of divya varsha, by neglecting the context in preceding verses which

> >

> > defined divya varsha. Sutra 89 defines pratyaksha pramaana and sutra

> >

> > 90-91 show exceptions in yogis, and sutra 92 show the exception in

> >

> > Ishvara, Who cannot be proven or perceived through nornal pratyaksha

> >

> > pramaana. If any doubt, following words of Kapil Muni remove it :

> >

> > Ch-3 sutra-55 says that Prakriti is not a Work (of Ishvara), yet is

> >

> > Paravasha. Hence, Ishvara is the controller of Prakriti.

> >

> > Next sutra make it clear : He (ishvara) is Omniscient (sarva-vit)

and

> >

> > Sarva-kartaa (ie, cause of all actions).

> >

> > And next sutra says : " idrish-ishvara- siddhih siddhah " , ie " thus

the

> >

> > existence of Ishvara is siddha / proven " .

> >

> > Thus, Sunil Bhattacharjya' s habit of deliberately misquoting from

> >

> > ancient texts is again proven here.

> >

> > Not only in Ishvara, Saamkhya believes in Brahman and the need of

> >

> > Brahmacharya for attaining siddhi in spiritual knowledge :

> >

> > Ch-5, sutra-116 expalins Brahma-roopataa in Samaadhi, Sushupti and

> >

> > Moksha, but normal mortals are ignorant to these three states, hence

> >

> > they do not know Brahman. A long practice under some good gura with

> >

> > Brahmacharya is needed for siddhi which Indra got and Virochana

failed

> >

> > in as mentioned in Chhaandogya Upanishada, Kapil Muni says so in

ch-4,

> >

> > sutras 17-19.

> >

> > I am surprised at your distorted renderings of ancient texts, made

out

> >

> > of context. Yet you say " You have not read Kapila Muni's work and

yet

> >

> > you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. " I do

> not

> >

> > want to make similar insulting statements about you. as for your

> denial

> >

> > of Purusha being Ishvara, read Purusha-sukta of RV and YV, which is

> >

> > reproduced in Vishnu Purana with minor changes.

> >

> > Ishvara is not the same as Brahman, and Saamkhya makes it amply

clear.

> >

> > You call it my " zero knowledge " because you want to study ancient

> >

> > scriptures against the method prescribed in them : Kapil Muni said

> >

> > spiritual knowledge cannot be attained without long Brahmacharya.

> >

> > <<< " By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> >

> > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> >

> > Upanisha " >>>

> >

> > I repeat " Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even

once.

> "

> >

> > Instead of abusing me, why you do not show the verse if I am a liar

> ???

> >

> > Please do not lie. Why you are making false quotations deliberately

?

> >

> > You make a mockery of Gita by saying its first six chapters are

Dvaita

> >

> > and rest are Advaita. You imply Lord Krishna was either a hypocrite

or

> a

> >

> > schizophrenic, by believing in two different philosophies.

> >

> > <<< One who says that there is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

> has

> >

> > to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara Upanishad

speaks

> >

> > about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and

lack

> >

> > of regard for truth.only.> >>

> >

> > Svetasvatara Upanishada is freely available online and anyone can

see

> >

> > whether Saamkhya is mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishada. The

subject

> >

> > matter of Samkhya and various upanishadas overlap : they talk about

> soul

> >

> > and Brahman, but it does not mean Svetasvatara Upanishada can be

> falsely

> >

> > cited, without providing the verses, for its imaginary references to

> >

> > Saamkhya.

> >

> > I am abstaining from retorting to personal abuses by a fellow who

has

> a

> >

> > habit of quoting falasely from scriptures as proven above, who has

no

> >

> > training in Sankrit disciplines and is not fit to sit even among my

> >

> > students who are now heads of departments.

> >

> > I had not abused you, but you are using abusing remarks against me

> just

> >

> > because I caught you red handed while you were falsely quoting

ancient

> >

> > texts. Instead of accepting your errors, you are taking recourse to

> >

> > further lies and abuses, calling me idiot, non-Hindu, etc. I am not

> >

> > going to use your abusive language.

> >

> > Show the reference about Saamkkhya in Svetasvatara Upanishada, which

> >

> > will decide who is a real idiot and a liar. I have already shown the

> >

> > reference to siddhi of Ishvara in Saamkhya against your false

> >

> > out-of-context misinterpretation.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ========= == ==

> >

> > vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> >

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

> >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value

of

> >

> > the nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinay,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Please do not make vague statements.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> >

> > > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth

is

> >

> > > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then

> he

> >

> > > is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment

against

> >

> > him

> >

> > > or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are

> >

> > actually

> >

> > > not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks

of

> >

> > > philosophy.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with

parallel

> >

> > example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not

> what

> >

> > a serious scholar will make.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha

is

> >

> > > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> >

> > > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya

> (but

> >

> > > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists

interpret

> >

> > the

> >

> > > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva

is

> >

> > > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> >

> > > each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

> >

> > > Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a

> creation

> >

> > > of later scholars.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that

to

> >

> > one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you

> >

> > mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that.

> He

> >

> > never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas

> as

> >

> > Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling

> the

> >

> > latter a special purusha.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te

> >

> > > latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls

> >

> > > once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then

meditated

> >

> > on

> >

> > > that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of

that.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> >

> > > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut

> of

> >

> > > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist

philosophies.

> >

> > > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> >

> > Saamkhya

> >

> > > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna

means

> >

> > > " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the

> >

> > Soul.

> >

> > > since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but

> >

> > > attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul,

but

> >

> > > Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the

universal,

> >

> > > nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On

this

> >

> > > basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If

> Gita

> >

> > > says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya

> aming

> >

> > > theistic philosophies.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes

> free

> >

> > from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic

> knowledge

> >

> > as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one

to

> >

> > to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara

> are

> >

> > the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With

> your

> >

> > qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 4)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> >

> > Veda

> >

> > > for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references

to

> >

> > > Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly

differentiates

> >

> > > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> >

> > > misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last

portion

> >

> > of

> >

> > > principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named

as

> >

> > > Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally,

> Veda

> >

> > > means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

> >

> > > Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly

duties

> >

> > > without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon

> >

> > > jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your

> >

> > wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between

para-vidya

> >

> > and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es

> >

> > according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is

the

> >

> > originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make

> your

> >

> > conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking

> >

> > about these big subjects.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 5)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> >

> > > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> >

> > > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> >

> > > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> >

> > Brahmasutra

> >

> > > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated

> souls

> >

> > > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate

> identities

> >

> > > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not

mean

> >

> > > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in

> many

> >

> > > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> >

> > this

> >

> > > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no

> multiplicity

> >

> > > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification

of

> >

> > > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain

their

> >

> > > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita,

> because

> >

> > > only One is in Many.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as

> it

> >

> > says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 6)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> >

> > following statements

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Yes an ignorant person will say so:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 7)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna

who

> >

> > > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita

was

> >

> > > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly

midway

> >

> > his

> >

> > > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil

> Muni

> >

> > > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is

proving

> >

> > the

> >

> > > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of

> WRONG

> >

> > > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> >

> > Ajna

> >

> > > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> >

> > > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> >

> > meaning

> >

> > > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not

> read

> >

> > > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge

should

> >

> > not

> >

> > > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not

> >

> > discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct

> at

> >

> > different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna

took

> >

> > Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to

> >

> > Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us

not

> >

> > to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.

> >

> > > By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are

> >

> > showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara

> >

> > Upanishad.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 8)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and

brahmacharya

> >

> > by

> >

> > > means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but

> >

> > > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for

matrimony.

> >

> > One

> >

> > > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya

> attained

> >

> > > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> >

> > that

> >

> > > he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> >

> > > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want

> others

> >

> > > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore

> sanyaasa

> >

> > > is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

> >

> > > sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take

> >

> > > sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without

> >

> > sanyaasa,

> >

> > > but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have

> >

> > access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord

> >

> > Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana

> >

> > maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say

> >

> > that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 9)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> >

> > > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have

told

> >

> > in

> >

> > > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept

> dancers

> >

> > > in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa

was

> >

> > not

> >

> > > a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari

> and

> >

> > > was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of

> seminal

> >

> > > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One

> who

> >

> > > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari.

One

> >

> > > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> >

> > > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how

> to

> >

> > > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure

> >

> > you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more

often

> >

> > any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject

of

> >

> > sex so often that it borders on prversity.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 10)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is

said

> >

> > > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> >

> > > follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya

were

> >

> > not

> >

> > > given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Chapter Verse

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 2 : 39

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 3 : 3

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 5 : 3, 4

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 13 : 24

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 18 : 13

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Chapter Verse

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 9 : 28

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because

it

> is

> >

> > > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> >

> > > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya,

> all

> >

> > > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> >

> > samskaara.

> >

> > > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> >

> > > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> >

> > > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi

grihasthas

> >

> > > who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not

> >

> > Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have

> talked

> >

> > about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy

by

> >

> > taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga

and

> >

> > then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the

> >

> > latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and

> then

> >

> > took his decision.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 11)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> >

> > > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and

arts

> >

> > > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> >

> > > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended,

> which

> >

> > > is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without

> >

> > brahmacharya

> >

> > > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking

their

> >

> > > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> >

> > > sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa

> >

> > with

> >

> > > the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not

> possible

> >

> > > for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma

do

> >

> > not

> >

> > > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some

strange

> >

> > > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> >

> > > never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and

> >

> > still

> >

> > > say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> >

> > grihasthas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided

vaasanaa

> >

> > is

> >

> > > totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> >

> > > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in

> it),

> >

> > > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from

some

> >

> > > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> >

> > > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> >

> > > according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not

> >

> > > attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara

> >

> > has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad

> >

> > speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance

> and

> >

> > lack of regard for truth.only.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > -SKB

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

> >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value

of

> >

> > the nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > To All,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of

> >

> > state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is

> >

> > decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then

he

> is

> >

> > in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him

> or

> >

> > anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually

> not

> >

> > his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of

> >

> > philosophy.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it

leaves

> it

> >

> > at that. " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha

is

> >

> > " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in

> >

> > Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya

(but

> >

> > it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret

> the

> >

> > singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is

> >

> > mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one

> each,

> >

> > but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in

Saamkhya

> is

> >

> > a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later

> >

> > scholars.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of

> >

> > " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the

> >

> > Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya

> and

> >

> > Yoga are dvaitic. " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite

> >

> > pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut

of

> >

> > yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies.

> >

> > Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in

> Saamkhya

> >

> > Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means

> " One

> >

> > Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul.

> since

> >

> > the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment

> of

> >

> > Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya

never

> >

> > says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it

say

> >

> > that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is

too

> >

> > much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya

to

> >

> > be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic

> >

> > philosophies.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is

the

> >

> > Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya,

> >

> > that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term

> >

> > Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless

references

> >

> > to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly

differentiates

> >

> > between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this

> misunderstood

> >

> > basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal

> >

> > Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as

> Ishopanishada

> >

> > and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means

> >

> > (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without

Jnaanakaanda.

> >

> > The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being

> >

> > tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda

with

> a

> >

> > proper charater and mindset.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says

> >

> > individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The

> >

> > question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from

> >

> > Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in

> Brahmasutra

> >

> > which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated

souls

> >

> > can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate

identities

> >

> > as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean

> >

> > Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in

many

> >

> > buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water :

> this

> >

> > is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no

multiplicity

> >

> > of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of

> >

> > Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their

> >

> > separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita,

because

> >

> > only One is in Many.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of

> >

> > following statements :

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is

> >

> > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> >

> > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> >

> > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there

> is

> >

> > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have

> the

> >

> > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> >

> > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes

us

> to

> >

> > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna

who

> >

> > believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was

> >

> > better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway

> his

> >

> > srmon at Kuruksetra !!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil

> Muni

> >

> > is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving

> the

> >

> > inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of

WRONG

> >

> > citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates

> Ajna

> >

> > (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After

> >

> > liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the

> meaning

> >

> > of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not

read

> >

> > it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should

> not

> >

> > be inparted to a soul restless with desires.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

> >

> > sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and

brahmacharya

> >

> > by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation,

but

> >

> > initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony.

> One

> >

> > can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya

attained

> >

> > Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was

> >

> > that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained

> >

> > Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want

others

> >

> > to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore

sanyaasa

> is

> >

> > unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of

sanyaasa

> >

> > are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa

and

> >

> > one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if

one

> >

> > downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a

> >

> > sanyashi " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> >

> > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into

> monkhood

> >

> > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of

a

> >

> > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> >

> > " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa

> >

> > (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told

> in

> >

> > many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept

dancers

> in

> >

> > his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not

a

> >

> > brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and

> was

> >

> > therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of

> seminal

> >

> > ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One

> who

> >

> > has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One

> >

> > year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to

> >

> > distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how

to

> >

> > differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is

said

> >

> > that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to

> follow

> >

> > Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not

> given.

> >

> > Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya :

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Chapter Verse

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 2 : 39

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 3 : 3

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 5 : 3, 4

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 13 : 24

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 18 : 13

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa ::

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Chapter Verse

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 6 : 1, 2, 4

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 9 : 28

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because

it

> is

> >

> > not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman

> >

> > before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya,

all

> >

> > grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana

> samskaara.

> >

> > But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many

> >

> > brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi,

> >

> > because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas

> who

> >

> > cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an

> >

> > egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of

> >

> > Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts

> >

> > emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of

> >

> > Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended,

which

> is

> >

> > the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya

> >

> > so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their

> >

> > parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who

> sublimate

> >

> > libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the

> >

> > " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible

for

> >

> > me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not

> >

> > marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange

> >

> > concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I

> never

> >

> > said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still

say

> >

> > that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all

> >

> > > grihasthas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided

> vaasanaa

> >

> > is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara

> >

> > Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in

it),

> >

> > when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some

> >

> > second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is

> >

> > impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama

> according

> >

> > to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by

> >

> > watching TV shows of five star gurus.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > -VJ

> >

> > >

> >

> > > ============ ========= ===== =====

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value

of

> >

> > the nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear friends,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is

supreme

> >

> > Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad

says

> >

> > that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is

> eternally

> >

> > free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is

> >

> > attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real

> doer

> >

> > the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti

and

> >

> > gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and

it

> >

> > leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the

> releasaed

> >

> > purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad

Gita

> >

> > did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya

does

> >

> > not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be

> proved.

> >

> > Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the

> influence

> >

> > of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or

> >

> > Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from

> Brahman.

> >

> > The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic

> >

> > Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita

> >

> > Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman

is

> >

> > given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have

> >

> > attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher

> >

> > Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there

> is

> >

> > no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have

> the

> >

> > next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad

> >

> > Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes

us

> to

> >

> > the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into

sanyasha

> >

> > to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is

> also

> >

> > a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya

> was

> >

> > an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated

> >

> > sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated

> >

> > sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only

> to

> >

> > claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and

he

> >

> > gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long

> >

> > ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher

> >

> > spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into

> monkhood

> >

> > one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of

a

> >

> > brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit.

> Adi

> >

> > Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by

> virtue

> >

> > of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate

> >

> > >

> >

> > > and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition

> before

> >

> > the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value

of

> >

> > the nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is

> >

> > dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly

> >

> > declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone

> >

> > thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such

> >

> > discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr

Malla

> >

> > should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written

> text

> >

> > is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used

as

> a

> >

> > synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of

> >

> > Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the

> >

> > culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be

> >

> > summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of

> >

> > iceberg.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who

have

> >

> > not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden.

> >

> > Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have

> >

> > purified themselves and are above Maayaa.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in

> >

> > everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs

> every

> >

> > now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the

world

> >

> > is relative to the observer " .

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference.

It

> >

> > is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in

> >

> > philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of

> >

> > philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji

> >

> > should learn it properly.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real

> follower

> >

> > of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack

> Jyotisha

> >

> > as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum

> >

> > chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of

> >

> > Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an

> >

> > astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > -VJ

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > ============ ========= ========= ========= = ===

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

the

> >

> > nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Jhaaji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt

> >

> > about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan

> is

> >

> > dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and

> >

> > prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait

vedanta

> >

> > says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to

> >

> > clarify this point.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring

> >

> > everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly

> >

> > interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our

vedantic

> >

> > philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what

> our

> >

> > religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our

> >

> > religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius

> >

> > philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does

> our

> >

> > philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific

> >

> > terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark

> >

> > qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific

> >

> > terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in

> the

> >

> > world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where

is

> >

> > he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS

> >

> > HOME,.where is this paralok?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future

> >

> > generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by

> >

> > science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth,

> >

> > which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and

> >

> > especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do

> not

> >

> > think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put

> it

> >

> > on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also

> >

> > agree with me with the details.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the

four

> >

> > dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply

> >

> > astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to

> >

> > share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without

the

> >

> > sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Regards,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Hari Malla

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> >

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Good write-up.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > A few clarifications please.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya

did

> >

> > not

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a

single

> >

> > term

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic

Philosophy

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > vadanti " .

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 2)

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population

> >

> > cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these

are

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Are these your own computations?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 3)

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two

> yogis

> >

> > observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made

in

> >

> > the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear

> structure

> >

> > was known to the modern science

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Best wishes,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > SKB

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and

value

> of

> >

> > the nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Malla Ji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any

motion

> >

> > or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without

God

> >

> > and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the

idea

> >

> > of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time,

> >

> > which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space,

> Time

> >

> > and Matter and all other material properties.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive

Pure

> >

> > Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The

> >

> > panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika

> part

> >

> > of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is

> even

> >

> > sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same

> as

> >

> > Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One,

> and

> >

> > it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a

bucket

> >

> > and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and

> >

> > Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara).

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is

Kalpita

> >

> > by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five

> >

> > subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called

five

> >

> > Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest

> as

> >

> > Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These

> >

> > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas.

These

> >

> > pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each

element

> >

> > of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa-

> >

> > bhootas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

> >

> > scientific terms?>>>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama

gunas,

> >

> > which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest

> >

> > material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13

> >

> > constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13

constituents,

> >

> > plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up

the

> >

> > 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called

> >

> > culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya

> samam

> >

> > jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic

> by

> >

> > dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from

> the

> >

> > universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well

into

> >

> > the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa

> >

> > " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " .

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure

> >

> > Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging.

> >

> > Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with

a

> >

> > false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this

> False

> >

> > Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This

False

> >

> > Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause

of

> >

> > rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera

> has

> >

> > 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three

> antah-karanas

> >

> > are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of

> " I " )

> >

> > and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence,

> but

> >

> > original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on

inner

> >

> > tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked

> >

> > intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5

> karmendriyas

> >

> > and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these

> >

> > > 13

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions

> by

> >

> > even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these

are

> >

> > estimates based on trends of century which have changed).

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as

White,

> >

> > Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term

> >

> > Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern

> >

> > Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured

> >

> > quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black

quarks

> >

> > by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds

> of

> >

> > sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these

three

> >

> > coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and

will

> >

> > always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These

> >

> > coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but

these

> >

> > colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our

> sensory

> >

> > organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as

> >

> > Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are

> " mathematical "

> >

> > categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya.

A

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > supercomputer

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic

> >

> > particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the

> >

> > intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many

> >

> > hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the

> >

> > quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal

faculty

> of

> >

> > socalled intelligence.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact

that

> >

> > modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point

> >

> > operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million

seconds

> or

> >

> > 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of

> >

> > individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty

> zeroes

> >

> > after one !!

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > -VJ

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ============ ========= ===== ==

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of

> the

> >

> > nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear Vinayji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you

say

> is

> >

> > quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti

as

> >

> > the the witnessed.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of

> the

> >

> > alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the

> >

> > witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the

> >

> > observed)?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in

scientific

> >

> > terms?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Regards,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Hari Malla

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ..

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> <jyotish_vani@

> >

> > ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji!

> >

> > Excellent!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Best regards,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

>

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother),

the

> >

> > Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent

is

> >

> > Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the

> >

> > Material World.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of

Matter.

> >

> > Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana

> of

> >

> > its Creator.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@>

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and

value

> of

> >

> > the nakshatras

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Dear sirs,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal

phenomenon

> >

> > discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by

> Shri

> >

> > Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said

> the

> >

> > universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and

> >

> > achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Regards,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

> >

> > <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > Hmmm...!

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@>

> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

> >

> > <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the

> opposite

> >

> > is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show

a

> >

> > third side of this strange coin.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > > Recent proofs about background radiation which

resulted

> in

> >

> > a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct.

> >

> > Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is

> that

> >

> > the stady-state- theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong.

> Secondly,

> >

> > a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in

> >

> > space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite

> universe

> >

> > with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a

> finite

> >

> > mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too,

> because

> >

> > a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the

> >

> > expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at

about

> >

> > the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic

> masses

> >

> > which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force

to

> >

> > overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is

> not

> >

> > a new idea in science, and is

> >

> > > known as Oscillating

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > Universe,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to

> >

> > digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and

> >

> > the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion

outwards.

> I

> >

> > stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the

> >

> > speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage

> >

> > everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite

> >

> > eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or

oscillation.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach

> the

> >

> > speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase

of

> >

> > their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of

> light,

> >

> > the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any

> objects

> >

> > to reach the speed of light or even near its speed.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > > JR

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > >

Sign In

Fw: Sunil Bhattacharjya Cites Scriptures Wrongly !!!

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads