Why vimshottari in 365.25

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurus and friends,

 

 

Can someone tell me why the vimshottari dasha is mostly use in a 365.25 lenght

instead of the 360 adviced by Maharishi Parashara ?

 

If this has been already discussed on the list , would you please let me know

the reference message ?

 

Many Thanks

 

 

Claudio

[Guest guest]

Vyam Vysadevaya Namah

-------------

Dear Claudio,

Where did Maharishi Parasara advise the use of 360 day years?

Best wishes, Visti.

 

> Dear Gurus and friends,

>

>

> Can someone tell me why the vimshottari dasha is mostly use in

a 365.25 lenght instead of the 360 adviced by Maharishi

Parashara ?

>

> If this has been already discussed on the list , would you

please let me know the reference message ?

>

> Many Thanks

>

>

> Claudio

>

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjaya,

 

Claudio is wrong. Parasara never said anything about the years to be

used.

 

However, I do not know of quotes from even Varahamihira suggesting

that he believed in solar years.

 

In fact, Dr. Raman says that Bhattotpala, a commentator of

Varahamihira, recommended savana years.

 

As far as I know, the only authority who explicitly recommended solar

years is Mantreswara, who is quite modern compared to Varahamihira

etc.

 

Could you kindly mention the name of the work and the number of the

verse, in which Varahamihira said this? I would like to cross-check.

 

Your sishya,

Narasimha

 

> Om Gurave Namah

> ------------------------

> Dear Lucas

> Maharishi parasara could never have said such a thing - whether in

BPHS or any othe writing like the Rig Veda. A samvatsara is defined

by the entry of the Sun into sidereal Aries and this definition has

been held by Varahamihira who was an ardent follower of the

preceptors and aa worshipper of Surya. That is why I use 360 degree

motion of the Sun and nothing else.

> Best Regards,

> Sanjay Rath

> Web: http://sanjayrath.tripod.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha,Sanjay & friends

 

To sum up this topic, Parashara seems to have never defined what he calls a year

(or what the sanscrit scolars have translated by "year")?

So the question naturaly arrises what was it ?

When we talk about a year today, there is no doubt in our mind (at least in the

western world) about what we are talking about: 365.25 days.

So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of time that seems to have been

generaly known as a "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was

otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point it out. We know that in the

BPHS when some choice is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with the

chara karakas he mentions that there are 2 schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he

opines for 8.Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words for definig

something.

365.25 days is a modern conventional length of time. This could not have existed

at the time of Parashara (and I just realize that now). So if it isn't a

samvatsara year, the natural question which arises in my mind is:

What the translators of the BPHS have translated by "year" in the book (and

which is generally speaking of and not only for the length of time for the

dashas) ?

I have the version of R.Santhanam and the one from Girish Chand Sharma in

english.And as I don't know sanscrit I have to rely on what the scholars say

from their translation.

 

best regards,

 

 

Claudio

 

 

-

pvr108

vedic astrology

Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:33 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

Pranaam Sanjaya,Claudio is wrong. Parasara never said anything about the years

to be used.However, I do not know of quotes from even Varahamihira suggesting

that he believed in solar years.In fact, Dr. Raman says that Bhattotpala, a

commentator of Varahamihira, recommended savana years.As far as I know, the

only authority who explicitly recommended solar years is Mantreswara, who is

quite modern compared to Varahamihira etc.Could you kindly mention the name of

the work and the number of the verse, in which Varahamihira said this? I would

like to cross-check.Your sishya,Narasimha> Om Gurave Namah>

------------------------> Dear Lucas>

Maharishi parasara could never have said such a thing - whether in BPHS or any

othe writing like the Rig Veda. A samvatsara is defined by the entry of the Sun

into sidereal Aries and this definition has been held by Varahamihira who was an

ardent follower of the preceptors and aa worshipper of Surya. That is why I use

360 degree motion of the Sun and nothing else. > Best Regards,> Sanjay Rath>

Web: http://sanjayrath.tripod.comArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology, "Claudio Scubla" <c.scubla@t...> wrote:

> Dear Narasimha,Sanjay & friends

>

> To sum up this topic, Parashara seems to have never defined what he

calls a year (or what the sanscrit scolars have translated by "year")?

> So the question naturaly arrises what was it ?

> When we talk about a year today, there is no doubt in our mind (at

least in the western world) about what we are talking about: 365.25

days.

 

In modern calendars this is not used, instead 365 days + leap

year.

 

> So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of time that seems

to have been generaly known as a "year" and for which there was no

doubt. If it was otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point

it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice is possible (or

some doubt could arise) like with the chara karakas he mentions that

there are 2 schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8.Parashara is

too subtle to use inadequate words for definig something.

> 365.25 days is a modern conventional length of time.

 

365.25 (+ many decimals) is the time it takes for the Sun to pass

from one degree to the same degree, so it's "natural" and

not "modern".

 

If one know thinks about an Indian astrologer in the past giving a

reading to his client, I would think that he would not use some

special definition of year but use the standard one. What is the

standard definition? I would think it's the Indian lunisolar

calendar's definition. So a year would in this view be the time

between a full (or new) Moon in Aries to the next full (or new) Moon

in Aries. This is equivalent to 365.25 days for past years if one

uses computer calculations (and takes into account the 13th month of

Indian tradition, used to make the years on average 365.25... days

long).

 

The client would obviously only count the number of times the day has

been reached in the calendar. And he would immediately relate to past

events based on his age at that time (with any other definition, his

age would not match with the number of "years" and he would have to

work out the difference by some calculations of his own).

 

By the way, does anyone know if Varahamihira mentions the Dakshinayana

and Uttarayana divisions of the year?

 

 

 

This could not have existed at the time of Parashara (and I just

realize that now). So if it isn't a samvatsara year, the natural

question which arises in my mind is:

> What the translators of the BPHS have translated by "year" in the

book (and which is generally speaking of and not only for the length

of time for the dashas) ?

> I have the version of R.Santhanam and the one from Girish Chand

Sharma in english.And as I don't know sanscrit I have to rely on what

the scholars say from their translation.

>

> best regards,

>

>

> Claudio

>

>

> -

> pvr108

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:33 AM

> [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

>

>

> Pranaam Sanjaya,

>

> Claudio is wrong. Parasara never said anything about the years to

be

> used.

>

> However, I do not know of quotes from even Varahamihira

suggesting

> that he believed in solar years.

>

> In fact, Dr. Raman says that Bhattotpala, a commentator of

> Varahamihira, recommended savana years.

>

> As far as I know, the only authority who explicitly recommended

solar

> years is Mantreswara, who is quite modern compared to

Varahamihira

> etc.

>

> Could you kindly mention the name of the work and the number of

the

> verse, in which Varahamihira said this? I would like to cross-

check.

>

> Your sishya,

> Narasimha

>

> > Om Gurave Namah

> > ------------------------

> > Dear Lucas

> > Maharishi parasara could never have said such a thing - whether

in

> BPHS or any othe writing like the Rig Veda. A samvatsara is

defined

> by the entry of the Sun into sidereal Aries and this definition

has

> been held by Varahamihira who was an ardent follower of the

> preceptors and aa worshipper of Surya. That is why I use 360

degree

> motion of the Sun and nothing else.

> > Best Regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > Web: http://sanjayrath.tripod.com

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-@e...

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

[Guest guest]

Dear Claudio,

 

> So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of

> time that seems to have been generaly known as a

> "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was

> otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point

> it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice

> is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with

> the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2

> schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8.

> Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words

> for definig something.

 

Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not clarify what

a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in

his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible

reasons:

 

(1) He clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have

today is not complete.

 

(2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara

wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas in

Jyotish. For example, it could be that different kind of years can be

used in the same dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems

wild, the reality sometimes can be too complex.

 

In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known

as "year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy,

Parasara used the word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which is

based on Jupiter's cycle. In the chapter on strengths (graha and

bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the savana years (360-day

years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the motion of

planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time as

an entity independent of everything else.

 

So, Parasara knew of two different years. In fact, he talks of

Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in Mahabharata, we

find an argument between Duryodhana and Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna

about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on a solar year to

be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and exile.

Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a

year. This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which

Duryodhana loses and dies).

 

Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425-day)

and 360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time.

 

So your argument that there was a fixed and well-known year at

Parasara's time does not hold water.

 

Finally, what is the correct year to be used?

 

There is no definitive answer at this time. The truth can be, as I

pointed out previously, very complex and stranger than we may imagine.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha,

 

 

Thank you for your answer. Strangely my message took 5 days to come on this list

during which I had the occasion to clarify this point with the same conclusion

as yours : it's a false problem and indeed has to be used according to some

rules which have been probably lost. Happy to know this story between

Duryodhana and the Pandavas.

 

best regards,

 

 

Claudio

-

pvr108

vedic astrology

Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:51 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

Dear Claudio,> So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of> time that

seems to have been generaly known as a> "year" and for which there was no

doubt. If it was> otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point> it out.

We know that in the BPHS when some choice> is possible (or some doubt could

arise) like with> the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2> schools (7 or

8 karakas)and he opines for 8.> Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words>

for definig something.Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not

clarify what a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in

his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible reasons:(1) He

clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have today is not

complete.(2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara

wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas in Jyotish.

For example, it could be that different kind of years can be used in the same

dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems wild, the reality sometimes can

be too complex.In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known as

"year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy, Parasara used the

word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which is based on Jupiter's cycle. In

the chapter on strengths (graha and bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the

savana years (360-day years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the

motion of planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time as

an entity independent of everything else.So, Parasara knew of two different

years. In fact, he talks of Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in

Mahabharata, we find an argument between Duryodhana and

Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on

a solar year to be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and

exile. Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a year.

This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which Duryodhana loses and

dies).Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425-day) and

360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time.So your argument

that there was a fixed and well-known year at Parasara's time does not hold

water.Finally, what is the correct year to be used?There is no definitive

answer at this time. The truth can be, as I pointed out previously, very

complex and stranger than we may imagine.May Jupiter's light shine on

us,NarasimhaArchives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

[Guest guest]

The reason I asked this, is because my translation of

BPHS says "Ayana, Muhurtha, a day (day and night), month,

forthnight and year - O excellent Brahmin, these are the

periods allotted to the planets respectively from the Sun

onward to Saturn." in Chapter 3. Then it comments what Ayana

means, and explains that it's a division of the solar year.

Since it mentions this solar year period in the same sentence

as a year, one would have to stretch it to think that a year

means something else.

 

So I was wondering if Varahamira deals with Ayanas at all,

and maybe even explains them (since my impression is that

he is more astronomical than Parasara), and maybe uses the

word(s) for year in that explanation.

 

 

>

> By the way, does anyone know if Varahamihira mentions the

Dakshinayana

> and Uttarayana divisions of the year?

>

>

>

> This could not have existed at the time of Parashara (and I just

> realize that now). So if it isn't a samvatsara year, the natural

> question which arises in my mind is:

> > What the translators of the BPHS have translated by "year" in the

> book (and which is generally speaking of and not only for the

length

> of time for the dashas) ?

> > I have the version of R.Santhanam and the one from Girish Chand

> Sharma in english.And as I don't know sanscrit I have to rely on

what

> the scholars say from their translation.

> >

> > best regards,

> >

> >

> > Claudio

> >

> >

> > -

> > pvr108

> > vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:33 AM

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

> >

> >

> > Pranaam Sanjaya,

> >

> > Claudio is wrong. Parasara never said anything about the years

to

> be

> > used.

> >

> > However, I do not know of quotes from even Varahamihira

> suggesting

> > that he believed in solar years.

> >

> > In fact, Dr. Raman says that Bhattotpala, a commentator of

> > Varahamihira, recommended savana years.

> >

> > As far as I know, the only authority who explicitly recommended

> solar

> > years is Mantreswara, who is quite modern compared to

> Varahamihira

> > etc.

> >

> > Could you kindly mention the name of the work and the number of

> the

> > verse, in which Varahamihira said this? I would like to cross-

> check.

> >

> > Your sishya,

> > Narasimha

> >

> > > Om Gurave Namah

> > > ------------------------

> > > Dear Lucas

> > > Maharishi parasara could never have said such a thing -

whether

> in

> > BPHS or any othe writing like the Rig Veda. A samvatsara is

> defined

> > by the entry of the Sun into sidereal Aries and this definition

> has

> > been held by Varahamihira who was an ardent follower of the

> > preceptors and aa worshipper of Surya. That is why I use 360

> degree

> > motion of the Sun and nothing else.

> > > Best Regards,

> > > Sanjay Rath

> > > Web: http://sanjayrath.tripod.com

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-@e...

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> > Terms of

> Service.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

Syamasundara Prabhu,

I fully agree with you for which I can quote Lagdha Maharishi (rik patha

Jyautisha etc) as well as Chanakya Pandita (Kautilya- Arthashastra),

Ayurveda classics et. al.

Regards

Sanjay Rath

 

Shyamasundara Dasa [shyama-d1]

Friday, May 17, 2002 5:38 PM

vedic astrology

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

 

 

 

-

"pvr108" <pvr

<vedic astrology>

Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:51 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

 

 

> Dear Claudio,

>

> > So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of

> > time that seems to have been generaly known as a

> > "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was

> > otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point

> > it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice

> > is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with

> > the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2

> > schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8.

> > Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words

> > for definig something.

>

> Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not clarify what

> a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in

> his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible

> reasons:

>

 

In the article that I refered to in my previous post, I explain how Maitreya

Rsi, the direct disciple of Parasara Rsi, goes to great length in defining

the measurement of time based on the atom and the movement of the Sun. The

whole discussion is found in the Srimad Bhagavatm 3rd canto. I have quoted

relavant parts. According to Maitreya Rsi the year is described thusly:

 

"It is calculated that there are four praharas, which are also called yamas,

in the day and four in the night of the human being. Similarly, fifteen days

and nights are a fortnight, and there are two fortnights, white and black,

in a month. The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that period is

one complete day and night for the Pitri planets. Two of such months

comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement of the

sun from south to north. Two solar movements make one day and night of the

demigods, and that combination of day and night is one complete calendar

year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of one

hundred years". Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.10-12

 

After reading the whole section partially quoted above there can be no doubt

as to what Maitreya Rsi learned from Parasata Muni and thus what Parasara

Rsi understood as the length of a year.

 

Shyama

 

www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com

 

 

 

 

 

> (1) He clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have

> today is not complete.

>

> (2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara

> wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas in

> Jyotish. For example, it could be that different kind of years can be

> used in the same dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems

> wild, the reality sometimes can be too complex.

>

> In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known

> as "year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy,

> Parasara used the word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which is

> based on Jupiter's cycle. In the chapter on strengths (graha and

> bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the savana years (360-day

> years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the motion of

> planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time as

> an entity independent of everything else.

>

> So, Parasara knew of two different years. In fact, he talks of

> Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in Mahabharata, we

> find an argument between Duryodhana and Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna

> about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on a solar year to

> be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and exile.

> Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a

> year. This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which

> Duryodhana loses and dies).

>

> Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425-day)

> and 360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time.

>

> So your argument that there was a fixed and well-known year at

> Parasara's time does not hold water.

>

> Finally, what is the correct year to be used?

>

> There is no definitive answer at this time. The truth can be, as I

> pointed out previously, very complex and stranger than we may imagine.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna!

 

I very seldom read texts on this forum but happened to scan the

subject lines and noticed this one.

 

For a much different treatment of this subject try the link below:

 

http://www.shyamasundaradasa.com/Shyama_site/what_is_jyotish/how_long_year/h

ow_long_year_1.htm

 

If the link doesn't work it is probably broken because of text wrapping

after a certain number of characters. Just go to the end of the link and

press delete so that the whole link is re-united.

 

If that doesn't work go to:

 

www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com

 

click on "What is Jyotish ?" and Scroll down to the article:

 

"How Long is a Year In Vimsottari Mahadasa?"

 

 

-

"pvr108" <pvr

<vedic astrology>

Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:51 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

 

 

> Dear Claudio,

>

> > So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of

> > time that seems to have been generaly known as a

> > "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was

> > otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point

> > it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice

> > is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with

> > the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2

> > schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8.

> > Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words

> > for definig something.

>

> Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not clarify what

> a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in

> his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible

> reasons:

>

> (1) He clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have

> today is not complete.

>

> (2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara

> wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas in

> Jyotish. For example, it could be that different kind of years can be

> used in the same dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems

> wild, the reality sometimes can be too complex.

>

> In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known

> as "year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy,

> Parasara used the word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which is

> based on Jupiter's cycle. In the chapter on strengths (graha and

> bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the savana years (360-day

> years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the motion of

> planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time as

> an entity independent of everything else.

>

> So, Parasara knew of two different years. In fact, he talks of

> Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in Mahabharata, we

> find an argument between Duryodhana and Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna

> about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on a solar year to

> be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and exile.

> Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a

> year. This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which

> Duryodhana loses and dies).

>

> Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425-day)

> and 360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time.

>

> So your argument that there was a fixed and well-known year at

> Parasara's time does not hold water.

>

> Finally, what is the correct year to be used?

>

> There is no definitive answer at this time. The truth can be, as I

> pointed out previously, very complex and stranger than we may imagine.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

-

"pvr108" <pvr

<vedic astrology>

Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:51 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

 

 

> Dear Claudio,

>

> > So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of

> > time that seems to have been generaly known as a

> > "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was

> > otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point

> > it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice

> > is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with

> > the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2

> > schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8.

> > Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words

> > for definig something.

>

> Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not clarify what

> a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in

> his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible

> reasons:

>

 

In the article that I refered to in my previous post, I explain how Maitreya

Rsi, the direct disciple of Parasara Rsi, goes to great length in defining

the measurement of time based on the atom and the movement of the Sun. The

whole discussion is found in the Srimad Bhagavatm 3rd canto. I have quoted

relavant parts. According to Maitreya Rsi the year is described thusly:

 

"It is calculated that there are four praharas, which are also called yamas,

in the day and four in the night of the human being. Similarly, fifteen days

and nights are a fortnight, and there are two fortnights, white and black,

in a month. The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that period is

one complete day and night for the Pitri planets. Two of such months

comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement of the

sun from south to north. Two solar movements make one day and night of the

demigods, and that combination of day and night is one complete calendar

year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of one

hundred years". Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.10-12

 

After reading the whole section partially quoted above there can be no doubt

as to what Maitreya Rsi learned from Parasata Muni and thus what Parasara

Rsi understood as the length of a year.

 

Shyama

 

www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com

 

 

 

 

 

> (1) He clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have

> today is not complete.

>

> (2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara

> wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas in

> Jyotish. For example, it could be that different kind of years can be

> used in the same dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems

> wild, the reality sometimes can be too complex.

>

> In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known

> as "year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy,

> Parasara used the word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which is

> based on Jupiter's cycle. In the chapter on strengths (graha and

> bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the savana years (360-day

> years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the motion of

> planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time as

> an entity independent of everything else.

>

> So, Parasara knew of two different years. In fact, he talks of

> Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in Mahabharata, we

> find an argument between Duryodhana and Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna

> about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on a solar year to

> be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and exile.

> Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a

> year. This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which

> Duryodhana loses and dies).

>

> Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425-day)

> and 360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time.

>

> So your argument that there was a fixed and well-known year at

> Parasara's time does not hold water.

>

> Finally, what is the correct year to be used?

>

> There is no definitive answer at this time. The truth can be, as I

> pointed out previously, very complex and stranger than we may imagine.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjaya,

 

It will be greatly appreciated if you indeed go ahead and quote

Lagdha Maharshi. I am not bothered about Chanakya though.

 

In a previous mail, you said you follow Varahamihira who used solar

years. I requested you for a quote and you were perhaps too busy.

Please give a quote from Varahamihira too.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

> Hare Krishna

> Syamasundara Prabhu,

> I fully agree with you for which I can quote Lagdha Maharishi (rik

patha

> Jyautisha etc) as well as Chanakya Pandita (Kautilya- Arthashastra),

> Ayurveda classics et. al.

> Regards

> Sanjay Rath

[Guest guest]

Namaste Syamasundara,

 

> "It is calculated that there are four praharas, which are also

called yamas,

> in the day and four in the night of the human being. Similarly,

fifteen days

> and nights are a fortnight, and there are two fortnights, white and

black,

> in a month. The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that

period is

> one complete day and night for the Pitri planets. Two of such months

> comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement

of the

> sun from south to north. Two solar movements make one day and night

of the

> demigods, and that combination of day and night is one complete

calendar

> year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of

one

> hundred years". Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.10-12

>

> After reading the whole section partially quoted above there can be

no doubt

> as to what Maitreya Rsi learned from Parasata Muni and thus what

Parasara

> Rsi understood as the length of a year.

 

In the same breath, various calendars are covered here. When he talks

about fortnights of 15 human days and 15 human nights, he's talking

about the Savana calendar, where each day is one civil day (day &

night). Here each month is of 30 civil days. When he talks of a white

and black fortnights in a month, he is referring to tithi-based

years, where each month is 30 tithis (but only 28-odd civil days).

When he talks of Sun's movement, he is talking of the solar calendar.

 

In essense, the quote above is touching all the calendars at the same

time. At the end of it, I cannot draw any conclusions. I cannot

understand how multiple statements fit together.

 

The discussion of whether or not the exile of Pandavas ended when

Arjuna came out of hiding to fight the Kaurava army (after Uttara

Gograhanam) is much more direct and much less ambiguous about what a

year should be.

 

In any case, my stand is conservative. It is that there is nothing

conclusive in the classics. If you say otherwise, the onus is on you

to show something conclusive. The quote you gave, I am afraid, does

not cut it. I will wait for Sanjay to quote Varahamihira and Lagdha

Maharshi.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Varsha is what the referenced Maitreya Rsi, the direct

disciple of Parasara Rsi, stated. Six R`tu-s make 1 varsha.

 

Samvatsara is from one yugaadi to next.

 

All the rest are desha-kaala variations. Yes, Bhishma sided

with Arjuna and declared that 360 tiThi-s make a year. This

might not have been the accepted notion then, Bhishma simply

wanted to save the Pandava-s from another round of

vanavaasa? We see no practice of 360-tiThi year anywhere,

except in Islam - so, there might have been a Vedic group

doing this, and it became the basis of tradition in Arabia.

 

The Savana year of Vedic times was the varsha: it had 360

days and some extra days of festivities near

uttarAyaNAramBha, but it always started with spring solstice

(agnyAdAna ceremony). Thus in reality it had ~365.2 days.

The Samvatsara marking existed then too, but the tradition

of samvatsara year, as we now have in our panchaangams,

might be later development.

 

Since dashaa-s are nakshatra based, it makes logical sense

to base them on samvatsara-s; basing on "varsha"-s does not

make lot of difference, since over one's lifespan of 100

years, he difference is not much (about an hour, I think). I

feel the 360-tiThi year is certainly not the way.... It is a

misnomer - there is no such natural annual cycle.

 

Food for thought: WHat is Natural Cycle?

 

 

Regards,

Shankara.

 

> "pvr108" <pvr@c...>

> > Dear Claudio,

> >

> > > So at the time of Parashara, there was a length of

> > > time that seems to have been generaly known as a

> > > "year" and for which there was no doubt. If it was

> > > otherwise the rishi could not have missed to point

> > > it out. We know that in the BPHS when some choice

> > > is possible (or some doubt could arise) like with

> > > the chara karakas he mentions that there are 2

> > > schools (7 or 8 karakas)and he opines for 8.

> > > Parashara is too subtle to use inadequate words

> > > for definig something.

> >

> > Good thinking, but not definitive. If Parasara did not clarify

what

> > a "year" means, it is not necessarily because it was well-known in

> > his time and there was no need to clarify. There are two possible

> > reasons:

> >

>

> In the article that I refered to in my previous post, I explain how

Maitreya

> Rsi, the direct disciple of Parasara Rsi, goes to great length in

defining

> the measurement of time based on the atom and the movement of the

Sun. The

> whole discussion is found in the Srimad Bhagavatm 3rd canto. I have

quoted

> relavant parts. According to Maitreya Rsi the year is described

thusly:

>

> "It is calculated that there are four praharas, which are also

called yamas,

> in the day and four in the night of the human being. Similarly,

fifteen days

> and nights are a fortnight, and there are two fortnights, white and

black,

> in a month. The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that

period is

> one complete day and night for the Pitri planets. Two of such months

> comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement

of the

> sun from south to north. Two solar movements make one day and night

of the

> demigods, and that combination of day and night is one complete

calendar

> year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of

one

> hundred years". Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.10-12

>

> After reading the whole section partially quoted above there can be

no doubt

> as to what Maitreya Rsi learned from Parasata Muni and thus what

Parasara

> Rsi understood as the length of a year.

>

> Shyama

>

> www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com

>

>

>

>

>

> > (1) He clarified this, but it is in lost verses. The BPHS we have

> > today is not complete.

> >

> > (2) The truth is too complex to be clarified in a verse. Parasara

> > wanted us to discover it when we are advanced enough in our tapas

in

> > Jyotish. For example, it could be that different kind of years

can be

> > used in the same dasa, for different purposes. Though this seems

> > wild, the reality sometimes can be too complex.

> >

> > In any case, it is not true that there was a fixed thing known

> > as "year" in Parasara's time. In the chapter on lost horoscopy,

> > Parasara used the word year for Barhaspatya (Jovian) years, which

is

> > based on Jupiter's cycle. In the chapter on strengths (graha and

> > bhava balas), he very clearly mentioned the savana years (360-day

> > years). Savana years are absolutely irrespective of the motion of

> > planets (Sun and Moon) and absolutely a fixed measurement of Time

as

> > an entity independent of everything else.

> >

> > So, Parasara knew of two different years. In fact, he talks of

> > Dharmaraja of Mahabharata as a contemporary and, in Mahabharata,

we

> > find an argument between Duryodhana and Bhishma/Dharmaraja/Arjuna

> > about what constitutes a year. Duryodhana insists on a solar year

to

> > be used to measure the time Pandavas spent in jungles and exile.

> > Dharmaraja, Arjuna and Bhishma argue that 360 tithis constitute a

> > year. This argument was the basis of Mahabharata war (in which

> > Duryodhana loses and dies).

> >

> > Thus, we know that Savana years (360-day), solar years (365.2425-

day)

> > and 360-tithis years (354-days) were all known at Parasara's time.

> >

> > So your argument that there was a fixed and well-known year at

> > Parasara's time does not hold water.

> >

> > Finally, what is the correct year to be used?

> >

> > There is no definitive answer at this time. The truth can be, as I

> > pointed out previously, very complex and stranger than we may

imagine.

> >

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

[Guest guest]

> vanavaasa? We see no practice of 360-tiThi year anywhere,

> except in Islam - so, there might have been a Vedic group

> doing this, and it became the basis of tradition in Arabia.

>

In Arabia before Muhammad the vedic calendar was used

(every three years an extra month):

http://home4.pacific.net.sg/~makhdoom/calendar.html

 

Regarding Bhishma, I think one should not forget that he

sided with Kauravas against Vishnu's avatar and was killed

in that battle. So he was a sinner, and not infallible. And

then when he was dying he waited until the solar year shifted

to die. Maybe there is a hidden moral in that?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

> Regarding Bhishma, I think one should not forget that he

> sided with Kauravas against Vishnu's avatar and was killed

> in that battle.

 

Duryodhana, who insisted on taking solar years, too was killed in the

same battle. So, what does it prove?

 

> So he was a sinner, and not infallible. And

> then when he was dying he waited until the solar year shifted

> to die. Maybe there is a hidden moral in that?

 

OK, let us accept for a moment that Bhishma was a "sinner". What

about Arjuna and Dharmaraja? Dharmaraja was dharma personified and

was extremely righteous. He and Arjuna were aided by the "Vishnu's

avatar" that you mention.

 

I am not arguing that this conclusively proves that 360-tithi years

are correct. I am only suggesting that the waters are muddied. :-)

 

Those who say that they aren't should bear the burden of proof! Show

me an unambiguous quote or proof in favor of solar years.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

I dont think there is any point in arguing about what should be the length

of the year. Lets try to apply the 360-tithi year on different charts and

look for the statistical evidence if it holds. I've done it for myself and

got really satisfying results. I could match the dates perfectly for various

life events (with the 354 days year). So, I'm sticking to it for further

research. can Group members also use 354 days year and discuss their

experience ? I think that will really solve the purpose of this group.

 

In my case, I'm currently running a jupiter mahadasha. and there was a patch

of 6 months which had so many mishaps that it really changed my life. When i

calculated my vimshottari dasha it was coming to be jupiter-saturn-venus.

Initially i wasn't very convinced as saturn is yog-karak for both my asc

(Tau) and moon (Libra) and venus is in Taurus (asc) forming a malavya yoga.

so i was a lil confused. There is a quote in "Bhavartha Ratnakara" which

says that saturn-venus or venus-saturn dasha is always bad for people except

sagittarius and pisces ascendents (for which both sat and venus r functional

malefics). That convinced me a little bit so i continued using the 365.2425

days year. But after using 354 days, I'm getting jupiter-saturn-rahu in

those 6 months. and Rahu is Atmakarak for me and in scorpio. after reading

the posts of this group for atmakarak, i'm convinced with those 6 month's

experience as it was definitely as if time was trying to teach me hard

lessons..

 

I'm attaching my chart alongwith. Can the learned gurus and other group

members please analyse it ? thanking you in anticipation..

 

Regards,

Prasad Phatak

 

 

<<self.jhd>>

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

'Achintya Bhed-Abhed' i.e. Everything is inconceivably simultaneously one

with yet different from divinity !!

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Attachment: (application/octet-stream) self.jhd [not stored]

[Guest guest]

>

> The Savana year of Vedic times was the varsha: it had 360

> days and some extra days of festivities near

> uttarAyaNAramBha, but it always started with spring solstice

> (agnyAdAna ceremony). Thus in reality it had ~365.2 days.

> The Samvatsara marking existed then too, but the tradition

> of samvatsara year, as we now have in our panchaangams,

> might be later development.

>

This year is used in China, so it might be older than

you think.

http://www.ichingwisdom.com/IChingWisdom/zodiac.html

 

It's supposed to date from at least 1000 B.C.

http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/horse.htm

[Guest guest]

>

> Those who say that they aren't should bear the burden of proof!

Show

> me an unambiguous quote or proof in favor of solar years.

>

Since the Vedas mention the 13th month, I would say the opposite. I

regard the Vedas somewhat higher, since the Mahabharata is a saga

and not meant to teach astrology.

 

Interestingly the word in Finnish for mead is "siima", quite similar

to "soma". (There is also similar mythology about gods vs. giants,

and thrown weapons in norse mythology. And solstice and midsummer

have long been celebrated, similar to the makarsankranti of Indian

tradition.)

 

But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention tithi

anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in

Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that.

 

 

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

> But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention

tithi

> anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in

> Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that.

 

In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual strength (strength of the

year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and not based on the

solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is luckily no

controversy so far.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha

jaya Jagannath

You have not answered the point about the wait of Bheesma for the change in

the solar year. Do consider that as well.

The proof will come only if you attempt to study Yuga.

Best Wishes

Sanjay Rath

 

 

pvr108 [pvr]

Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:32 AM

vedic astrology

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

 

 

Namaste,

 

> Regarding Bhishma, I think one should not forget that he

> sided with Kauravas against Vishnu's avatar and was killed

> in that battle.

 

Duryodhana, who insisted on taking solar years, too was killed in the

same battle. So, what does it prove?

 

> So he was a sinner, and not infallible. And

> then when he was dying he waited until the solar year shifted

> to die. Maybe there is a hidden moral in that?

 

OK, let us accept for a moment that Bhishma was a "sinner". What

about Arjuna and Dharmaraja? Dharmaraja was dharma personified and

was extremely righteous. He and Arjuna were aided by the "Vishnu's

avatar" that you mention.

 

I am not arguing that this conclusively proves that 360-tithi years

are correct. I am only suggesting that the waters are muddied. :-)

 

Those who say that they aren't should bear the burden of proof! Show

me an unambiguous quote or proof in favor of solar years.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> > But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention

> tithi

> > anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in

> > Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that.

>

> In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual strength (strength of the

> year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and not based on the

> solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is luckily

no

> controversy so far.

>

This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in

earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days.

 

This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an

extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year.

http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt

 

If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue

against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this is

the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier post

that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha).

 

 

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Vyam Vysadevaya Namah

------------------

Dear List,

A better argument would be to understand the results of the Dwadas-Aditya, and

why a transit through all of them should be considered as being 1 year.

 

Of the 33 Devas, the 8 Vasus consitute the facets of our being, the 11 Rudras

shows the destruction, whilst the Dwadasa Aditya are responsible for the entire

creation. For those counting; Prajapati and Indra are the last two devas.

 

The DwadasAditya are responsible for the creation of everything material and

this is also the reason why we see the Dwadasamsa(D-12) to see who created us!.

This is why some call it Suryamsa. The Dwadas-Aditya are hence responsible for

all events in life, whilst say Nakshetras, constitute prime facets of our

being.

 

We must anticipate that the Rishi's understood this in their time, hence this

should also be our basis for discussion, and not what 'might' have been written

in a book.

 

Am in great anticipation of feedback.

Best wishes, Visti.

 

-

cjjohans

vedic astrology

Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:42 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:> Namaste,> > > But the

crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not mention > tithi > > anywhere to

my knowledge (but does mention solar days at least in > > Shadbhala), I would

think he did not mean that.> > In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual

strength (strength of the > year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and

not based on the > solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is

luckily no > controversy so far.> This is not the year you have been

defending. You mentioned in earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354

days. This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with an extra

month, not in a three year period as the tithi

year.http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txtIf you are going to

argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't argue against since the translator

Sharma is of the opinion that this is the year which Parasara means. But I

understood from an earlier post that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12

signs = 1 Varsha).> May Jupiter's light shine on us,> NarasimhaArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Visti and list,

The most natural answer to this would be to actually try the theory

of different years with actual events in a person's life and see how

it ties up. Perhaps you could suggest a chart with known time of

death say and we could try and see what makes more sense.

I was looking at the death time of a person who was running Venus

dasa per 365.25 day year calculations when he died. This is not

neccesarily a cause of death, so I looked at gochara and saw he had

Saturn in 8th at the time. His Saturn shadbala was also highest in

natal chart, with natal saturn in karkata. He was due to start Saturn

sub-dasa in 1 year's (365.25) time. So dasa calc did not support his

death. Now if I use 360 day years, then dasa and gochara both

indicate bad times for the native. That is why I started having

doubts abt the year length. What do you think?

Viraj

 

vedic astrology, "Visti Larsen" <vishnu@l...> wrote:

> Vyam Vysadevaya Namah

> ------------------

> Dear List,

> A better argument would be to understand the results of the Dwadas-

Aditya, and why a transit through all of them should be considered as

being 1 year.

>

> Of the 33 Devas, the 8 Vasus consitute the facets of our being, the

11 Rudras shows the destruction, whilst the Dwadasa Aditya are

responsible for the entire creation. For those counting; Prajapati

and Indra are the last two devas.

>

> The DwadasAditya are responsible for the creation of everything

material and this is also the reason why we see the Dwadasamsa(D-12)

to see who created us!. This is why some call it Suryamsa. The Dwadas-

Aditya are hence responsible for all events in life, whilst say

Nakshetras, constitute prime facets of our being.

>

> We must anticipate that the Rishi's understood this in their time,

hence this should also be our basis for discussion, and not

what 'might' have been written in a book.

>

> Am in great anticipation of feedback.

> Best wishes, Visti.

>

> -

> cjjohans

> vedic astrology

> Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:42 PM

> [vedic astrology] Re: Why vimshottari in 365.25

>

>

> vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:

> > Namaste,

> >

> > > But the crux is what Parasara meant, since he does not

mention

> > tithi

> > > anywhere to my knowledge (but does mention solar days at

least in

> > > Shadbhala), I would think he did not mean that.

> >

> > In shadbalas, the varsha bala or annual strength (strength of

the

> > year) is based on savana years (360-day years) and not based on

the

> > solar years. This is very clear from the text and there is

luckily

> no

> > controversy so far.

> >

> This is not the year you have been defending. You mentioned in

> earlier posts 360 tithi year, which is about 354 days.

>

> This year was apparently rounded off in a five year period with

an

> extra month, not in a three year period as the tithi year.

> http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0304/ejvs0304.txt

>

> If you are going to argue for this 360 solar day year, I can't

argue

> against since the translator Sharma is of the opinion that this

is

> the year which Parasara means. But I understood from an earlier

post

> that "varsha" means solar year (6 Ritus/12 signs = 1 Varsha).

>

>

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-@e...

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

[Guest guest]

> Since the Vedas mention the 13th month, I would say the opposite. I

> regard the Vedas somewhat higher, since the Mahabharata is a saga

> and not meant to teach astrology.

>

> Interestingly the word in Finnish for mead is "siima", quite

> similar to "soma". (There is also similar mythology about gods vs.

 

Ahah! You seems to belongs to the Indology tribe and applying

silly "comparative linguistics". And these idiots claiming that

SamskR`tam is the derivative of some Indo-European language. Does

this stands to *scientific scrutiny*. Just fantastic indological

imagination only. No scientific proof! And, where does

misnomer 'Sanskrit' come from - which DhAtu, by what linguistic path?

apaBhramsha is not BhASA per pANini.

 

And That Vedic notions are Germanic/European is the rubbish 18th

century primitive Europeans wrote about - without really mastering

or practicing the Veda-s or Samskr`ta or yoga! Their entire thesis

was to establish that a warring tribe they called "ARYANS" from

Eurasia invaded (now it is changed to 'migrated') to India & the pre-

Vedic Haarappa fell. Then their priests sat under the trees

and "wrote" poems called Veda-s! Samskr`ta (& their Euro languages)

came from another mother language termed by these imaginatives as

some lost Indo-European language. No trace whatsoever of that

language exists! That is amazing! Herein lie the fantastic

imaginations, not in Indian philosophy.

 

Members in this group may want to know this background: The

god of the so-called Euro-linguistics, Maxmuller, got a

smattering of sorts in Samskr`tam by reading the notes of a

puny lawyer (not scholar of any sorts) called Bill Jones, an

employee of East India Company paid from India's robbed

wealth, who learnt slipshod Samskr`ta by bribing Pandits

(using the robbed wealth) in Kalkotta in 1750's. And they,

knowing the British designs to trash India in every light,

intentionally taught this puny Jones the most wrong notions

imaginable. Jones himself cried foul about this, he had

written so, but that was the father figure of this great

Emperor in New Clothes, called Indology, with its liguistics

as its inseparable queen. For the 18th century primitive

Europeans ONLY whose Greeco-Roman ancestors indeed saw a

flat fixed earth at the center of the universe, and a Sun

going around their Sparta, Athens, or Rome (read Greek/Roman

history for its roots, you don't find that in India's

scriptures, not even in the much "erroneous" PuraaNa-s),

flat is not divine, round and smooth in heavens is divine,

etc., the Maxmullerian lullaby was all "great fundamental

truths" they gathered on India's foundations. There can not

be any better illustration of plain stark primitivity of the

monkey grade!

 

But in nityapUja viDhi traditions, a hint to sOma

 

sOma mandalAya namaH |

sOma mandalADhipatayE viSNavE namaH |

 

sa + Uma = s0ma

 

See the deeper meaning rather than applying sunken post-Aristotlian

mind.

 

Best Regards,

VR