[Advaita-l] questions on mayavada.
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 10 11:51:25 CST 2010
Your statement is like that of a thief accusing the police. You were confused and tried to show your smartness by bringing in Jainism as you thought Buddhism came after Jainism and you will be able to muddle the discussions. You should be grateful that I removed your ignorance. Now your statemnt that your bringing in jainism was incidental, is an attempt to cover up your ignorance. Nobody will believe that a smart man like you brought in Jainism into the discussions without a purpose.
I have told the forum through several mails that Dharmakaya is the state of the Shunyata, amd this in line with the Prajnaparamita. The learned members may check my earlier mails on this If they want to. I have nothing more to say. As expected you have conveniently not registered what I said in my earlier mails.
Your having said that even a schoolboy knows that Jainism preceded Buddhism by a century now you want to back out by saying <<< history which has no way of verifying and without clear evidence.>>> This is your way of trying to cover up and show smartness. I have already mentioned about the discrediting of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), from which Max Muller came up with the date of Lord Buddha as after Lord Mahavira. I also mentioned about the work of the astronomical work on Lord Buddha's date by one Prof. working in USA.
Those who value history and want to know further on the subject may read up on the recent researches in the areas such as on linguistics and on the Dotted Records. History was valued by the ancient seers. That is why they made history as one of the compulsory criteria for the fifth Veda (ie. the Puranas). Those interested members, who are interested in ancient Indian history can read up on the discovery of the Indus Valley civilisation and other archaeological evidences also, which discredits the AIT. Further there are evidences from the account of Alberuni which says Buddhism was there in the times of Zarathustra and that shows that Lord Buddha was before To me it does not matter if people like Sri Srikanta conveniently do not value history based on all the new evidences and want to stick to AIT as taught from the colonial days.
Lastly please keep your advices to yourself. Do you understand? No more discussions with you.
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, srikanta <srikanta at nie.ac.in> wrote:
From: srikanta <srikanta at nie.ac.in>
Subject: [Advaita-l] questions on mayavada.
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 2:56 AM
Your statements are really unbecoming of your stature and age.I donot
intend to coverup, much less tell lies.I have already explained that my
mention of Jainism is only incidental and has no bearing on the discussion
to this topic.You are still not explained what is Dharmakaya from your
references,or what reference book you quote for your definition.In the
discussions of this type,one is required to provide the references.Your
statements of coverup,you are not knowing,etc.are unbecoming of a
scholar.Also,You are not Shankara or I am not Mandana Mishra as you have
mentioned to Sri Shivasenani Nori.One requires deeper study than what you
have expressed in your discussions.My advise to you is if your discusions
is to be meaningful,be precise,donot harp on one point of the other
person,and concentrate on factas,rather than history which has no way of
verifying and without clear evidence.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list