Nirukti of the word 'Lagna' - To Finn ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Finn ji,

The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means

join/conjunct/mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means " the one that

joins/conjuncts/mixes/combines " . There are many words that sprung from

this root. Look at the following word -

" Lagna MandalaH " - it means the same as " Rasi Chakra " and means

'Zodiac'.

Mandala = Chakra = Circle

Lagna = Rasi = Sign

Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also means 'Sign

Circle' or in other words both are other names for the Ecliptic, the

zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any standard

Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna' can

means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the

following Nirukti -

'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which

join/conjunct/mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna'; certainly the

word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets joins

(traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every sign

means 'Lagna'.

Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'

meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/mix/combine (or in other words

shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna' can

refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'.

Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition such as

'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called Lagna'.

Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated with the

word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the word 'rising'

that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the horizon,

the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here too

and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant' acceptable.

Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as done

in Prasnamarga), the word 'Lagna' loses all its association with

'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!

Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora Lagna',

'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which are NOT

AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore in such

contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes erroneous.

Considering all these points it becomes clear that accepting the

meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana' context is a

truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and Dictionaries.

Hope this helps.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Finn ji,

> The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the meaning 'Sign' to

> the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next post. Now

> coming to your next argument -

> ==>

> > However, even if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means

> > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very

> > clearly been stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was

> > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of

> > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and

> > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.

> <==

> It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I will

> re-state it here.

> " kuleere abyudite ravav " It could be a simple sandhi mistake of a

> missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be " kuleere

> abyuditaraavav " , meaning " Mars (aara) was in Capricorn (Kuleera) " .

> Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is given in Sanskrit

> Nikhandus as " Kuleero Nakra Karkatau " meaning " The word Kuleera is

> used for Capricon and Cancer " . The auther of Hridyapadha vyakhya of

> Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various Nikhandus and

> argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is also very

> popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows that apart

> from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the position

> of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from the

> description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and Mercury

> are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the Nakshatra

> of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it becomes

> clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days, and also

> that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only the

> planetary position.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> <jyotirved@> wrote:

> >

> > , " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > Namaskar!

> > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree that the

> > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are concoctions

> > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a period of

> > second century BCE.

> > However, you have also said

> >

> > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement given is

> > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at that

> > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

> > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

> > Nirukti of the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the

> > word Lagna) ->

> >

> > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr useless or

> > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware of the

> > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of birth/event.

> > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya Sidhanta

> > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work. The

> > complete sholka is " Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne

> > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite ravav " --

> > 1/18/15

> >

> > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However, even

> > if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign, how do

> > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly been

> > stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was in Kuleera

> > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan Rama in

> > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana could not

> > be in Karkata in any case.

> > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was born in

> > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and (iii-iv)

> > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in " Sarpi " i.e. Ashlesha. They are in a

> > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in Karkata,

> > who are younger by just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and Bharata

> > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!

> >

> > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been a

> > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.

> > With regards,

> > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > >

> > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > ==>

> > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > Valmiki

> > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of either

> > > > that period or a later one!

> > > <==

> > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is re-

> > written

> > > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is the correct

> > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently available

> > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly the work

> > of

> > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a planetary

> > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!!

> > > ==>

> > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any

> > obscurity, we

> > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation came into

> > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-Avtar and

> > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > <==

> > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said that - it is

> > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in the recent

> > > past. He just took some samples from the recent history known to

> > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that fulfills his

> > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic poet' who

> > knew

> > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who mistook to

> > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men with a tail

> > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in Ramayana

> > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )

> > > ==>

> > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we had at

> > that

> > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles was the

> > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > Sidhantika!

> > > <==

> > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who wrote

> > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts - not that

> > he is

> > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary position

> > of

> > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and mentions

> > that

> > > it was Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami. No great

> > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much, and

> > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of the

> > people in

> > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary position

> > using

> > > that.

> > > If you are bewildered by the statement that " ALL THE PLANETS ARE

> > > MENTIONED " , then here goes the clarification:

> > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated

> > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.

> > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not clear.

> > > Then comes the interesting part -

> > > 4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement given

> > is

> > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at that

> > time

> > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means Sign -

> > as

> > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and Nirukti of

> > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the word

> > Lagna) -

> > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!

> > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and Satrukhna it is

> > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that " Kuleere

> > > Abhuditeaaravo " means " Arra (Mars) was in Capricon (Kuleera) " !!

> > Which

> > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion about 'Sun in

> > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the position

> > of

> > > Mars is clearly stated!

> > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which as per

> > the

> > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes clarified. Sa is in

> > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus!

> > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the confusion

> > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused by our

> > > ignorance and lack of effort to understand the facts!

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > , " Avtar Krishen

> > Kaul "

> > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > Namaskar!

> > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156 (Gregorian

> > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what I

> > mean. The

> > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.>

> > > >

> > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of yourself by

> > such

> > > > comments!

> > > >

> > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary position of

> > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the planetary

> > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to two

> > > > conclusions:

> > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March 14, 157

> > BC at

> > > > 9-15 PM

> > > > or

> > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > Valmiki

> > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of either

> > > > that period or a later one!

> > > >

> > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any

> > obscurity, we

> > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation came into

> > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-Avtar and

> > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > >

> > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological knowledge and

> > latest

> > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish jyotishi

> > has

> > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC into the

> > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine incarnation

> > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!

> > > >

> > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we had at

> > that

> > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles was the

> > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > Sidhantika!

> > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless astronomical

> > work

> > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so much so

> > that

> > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!

> > > > QED/QEF

> > > > With regards,

> > > > AKK

> > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156 (Gregorian

> > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what I

> > mean.

> > > > The

> > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.

> > > > > Let us look at the core argument of Kaul ji -

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > called

> > > > sayana

> > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa i.e. the

> > > > first

> > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of Bhagwan

> > Rama.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki Ramayana

> > which

> > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa'; I hope

> > Kaul ji

> > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same text. ;=)

> > Actually

> > > > if

> > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the birth

> > took

> > > > place

> > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu.

> > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the word 'Lagna'

> > is a

> > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta defenition

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc, even

> > though

> > > > the

> > > > > second meaning became popular later.

> > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this text - was

> > > > describing

> > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to him -

> > possibly

> > > > a

> > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period, and that is

> > why

> > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine one.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it may

> > better to

> > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the subject.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > I agree - but is it not that these discussions itself is

> > part of

> > > > the

> > > > > investigations into the subject?

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions regarding

> > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > possible

> > > > it

> > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions

> > to

> > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -

> > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas & Tantric texts

> > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature, Epics,

> > Puranas

> > > > etc

> > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data around, and

> > we

> > > > can

> > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions agree

> > with

> > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the birth

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > description

> > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana with

> > the

> > > > one

> > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > differences?

> > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and relevant

> > > > information.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing - our

> > major

> > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki

> > Ramayana'

> > > > (and

> > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not forget the

> > main

> > > > area

> > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end of our

> > study,

> > > > for

> > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come up. We

> > > > will

> > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further

> > > > investigations

> > > > > into other areas. :=)

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Finn Wandahl "

> > > > > <finn.wandahl@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions regarding

> > the

> > > > origin

> > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it may

> > better to

> > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions regarding

> > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > possible

> > > > it may

> > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions to

> > similar

> > > > > > descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the birth

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > description

> > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana with

> > the

> > > > one

> > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > differences?

> > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and relevant

> > > > information.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Finn

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit that

> > these

> > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are later day

> > > > > > > > interpolations

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that the

> > whole

> > > > ramayana

> > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC and 2

> > AD?

> > > > With the

> > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions,

> > Ardhasastra

> > > > (of

> > > > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I believe that

> > it

> > > > is clear

> > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD for

> > sure -

> > > > or better

> > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself.

> > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological reference in

> > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the line of

> > all

> > > > the

> > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly superstitions.

> > Actually

> > > > that

> > > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT AT ALL

> > > > written by

> > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid brahmins of

> > sunga

> > > > period.

> > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such a text?!!

> > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact that -

> > The

> > > > whole

> > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text created with a

> > > > purpose -

> > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD. Even the

> > > > > > > astronomical references in it is going in the same

> > direction.

> > > > If there

> > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently available

> > one (as

> > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata), then that text is buried in

> > dept

> > > > by the

> > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a purpose and

> > wanted

> > > > to

> > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by calling

> > Buddha

> > > > a thief

> > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make of that

> > era

> > > > (BC 200

> > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary works as

> > > > well.

> > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how about

> > going

> > > > against

> > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures who in a

> > > > futile

> > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin projecting,

> > Yaga

> > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient scripts and

> > even

> > > > tried to

> > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic astrological

> > signs

> > > > also into

> > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't it that

> > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same?

> > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically acceptable

> > path,

> > > > with

> > > > > > > enough evidence in support.

> > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all

> > authentic.

> > > > Giving it

> > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is ignorance.

> > Rama

> > > > is god

> > > > > > > or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of a made

> > up

> > > > text like

> > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written by

> > Valmiki

> > > > for sure

> > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of partiality and

> > hatred

> > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was a great

> > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta, and

> > > > ascribing the

> > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available Ramayana on

> > him

> > > > is a

> > > > > > > SIN, and an insult of that great sage.

> > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking.

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Avtar

> > > > Krishen Kaul "

> > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following argument and

> > > > > > > > possibilities ->

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to ponder on the

> > > > following

> > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi Mahakavya

> > > > i.e. the

> > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history and

> > Maharshi

> > > > Valamiki

> > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated much

> > earlier

> > > > than

> > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed much

> > earlier

> > > > than

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:

> > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or Mangal Shani

> > etc.

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > in the VJ

> > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the

> > Mahabharata

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any Mangal

> > Shani

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas prior to the

> > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of Bhagwan

> > Rama,

> > > > > Bharata,

> > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki Ramayana?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of all the

> > > > astronomers

> > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the irreconcilable

> > facts

> > > > that if

> > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon in

> > Karakta in

> > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been Navmki

> > tithi

> > > > or vice-

> > > > > > > > versa?

> > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > called

> > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa i.e.

> > the

> > > > first

> > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> > Bhagwan

> > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never have been

> > in

> > > > Karkata

> > > > > > > > if the sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even Mina!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile these

> > > > irreconcilable

> > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing stock of

> > > > ourselves!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit that

> > these

> > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are later day

> > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing overzealous

> > > > astrologers who

> > > > > > > > did not know even this much of astronomy that if the sun

> > of

> > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could never have

> > been

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His siblings!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT THAT WE DO

> > NOT

> > > > HAVE A

> > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS

> > INCREASED

> > > > SINCE IT

> > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA KARTUM

> > > > SAMARTH AND

> > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is that it

> > means

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa etc. did not

> > > > > believe in

> > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.

> > > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- In

> > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji, Kishor ji, Finn ji,

> > > > > > > > > I request you to look in to the following argument

> > and

> > > > > > > > possibilities -

> > > > > > > > > * The Yaga started at the beginning of Vasanta

> > Ritu.

> > > > And

> > > > > > > > possibly

> > > > > > > > > ended near the end of Vasanta Ritu. In the 12th

> > Nakshatra

> > > > month

> > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > the end date of Yaga reached (i.e. when 280+ days, the

> > > > normal

> > > > > > > > period

> > > > > > > > > of pregnancy is completed), and when the year was

> > going to

> > > > be

> > > > > > > > > completed, Rama and brothers where born.

> > > > > > > > > * From the mention of Navami Tithi and Punarvasu

> > > > nakshatra

> > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > clear that Moon was some where near 27 degrees in

> > Pisces.

> > > > > > > > > * It is at the Vishu date (i.e. when Sun is in the

> > > > vernal

> > > > > > > > equinox)

> > > > > > > > > that Vasanta Ritu bigins.

> > > > > > > > > * Considering the above 3 points it is clear that

> > VERNAL

> > > > > EQUINOX

> > > > > > > > > WAS SOMEWHERE AFTER (NEAR) 27 DEGREE PISCES at the

> > time of

> > > > > birth of

> > > > > > > > > Rama! Can we have a bit more clarify on this? Let us

> > > > consider the

> > > > > > > > > following point -

> > > > > > > > > * Possibly, from the beginning of Vasnata Ritu, it

> > is

> > > > after, 60

> > > > > > > > > days (Vasata Ritu) + 280 days = 340 days, that Rama

> > was

> > > > born.

> > > > > > > > > Completion of the year could take approximately

> > 365.2425 -

> > > > 340 =

> > > > > > > > > 25.2425 days more. Means the Ayanamsa (if at all used)

> > was

> > > > must

> > > > > > > > tally

> > > > > > > > > with this. In any case it is clear that " at the time

> > of

> > > > Rama's

> > > > > > > > birth

> > > > > > > > > Sun was between solstice and vernal equinox " ! (Because

> > the

> > > > next

> > > > > > > > > Vasnata Ritu was yet to bigin)

> > > > > > > > > So what is the important derivation and conclusion?

> > > > Here it

> > > > > is -

> > > > > > > > > * If this is the case, certainly either -

> > > > > > > > > 1)it is the description of a recent planetary

> > > > position

> > > > > > > > (possibly

> > > > > > > > > between 250 BC and 250 AD) OR

> > > > > > > > > 2)the description of a planetary position at

> > least

> > > > 26000

> > > > > > > > years

> > > > > > > > > before!

> > > > > > > > > Because the same position of equinox can repeat

> > only

> > > > after

> > > > > > > > 26000

> > > > > > > > > years aprox.

> > > > > > > > > I discard the 2nd choice simply as absurd and

> > > > impossible -

> > > > > > > > > considering out understanding of the archeological and

> > > > linguistic

> > > > > > > > > history of ancient india.

> > > > > > > > > So the revelation is that - the planetary position

> > given

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > > > > is the description of a RECENT planetary position -

> > > > possibly

> > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > 250 BC and 250 AD!! (It is the possible period of

> > origin

> > > > > indicated

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > various references present in Valmiki Ramayana

> > itself). Is

> > > > there

> > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > year during this period which satisfies the

> > conditions -

> > > > provided

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > the text? The points that should become true are -

> > > > > > > > > * 5 planets should be either in own sign or

> > exaltation.

> > > > > > > > > * Jupitor and Moon should be in Cancer

> > > > > > > > > * It should be Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > The extra points that could be considered are -

> > > > > > > > > * The word 'Lagna' could means 'Sign' as well.

> > > > Therefore it is

> > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > necessary that Rama's Asc should be Cancer. (But if it

> > is

> > > > so, in

> > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > the slokas present in Valmiki Ramayana the

> > word 'Lagna'

> > > > should

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > 'Sign' itself)

> > > > > > > > > * The word 'Prasanna dhee' used in Bharata's chart

> > > > could mean

> > > > > > > > > Mercury.

> > > > > > > > > * Since Valmiki Ramayana follows the Vedic path, as

> > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > naturally expected, it could be a Tropical horoscope

> > > > instead of a

> > > > > > > > > Nirayana horoscope.

> > > > > > > > > Is there a possible year in between BC 250 and AD

> > 250

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > > satisfies these conditions? Could it be: -157 or I

> > request

> > > > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > > > > and others to verify the following planetary position

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > possible

> > > > > > > > > date, using Tropical Zodiac-

> > > > > > > > > * Ju and Moon in Cancer

> > > > > > > > > * Sun and Me in Pisces

> > > > > > > > > * Sa in Aquarious

> > > > > > > > > * Ma in Capricon

> > > > > > > > > * Ve in Tarus

> > > > > > > > > * Ra & Ke in Ge-Sg axis

> > > > > > > > > * Asc Scorpio!

> > > > > > > > > * Suklapaksha Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > Note that all the conditions given in the text

> > Ramayana

> > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > true,

> > > > > > > > > it the following planetary position is possible. For

> > > > example -

> > > > > > > > > * Ma, Sa, Ve are in own sign & Ju, Ma are in

> > exaltation -

> > > > > making

> > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > planets in own sign or exaltation.

> > > > > > > > > * The tithi is Suklapaksha Navami and Nakshatra

> > > > Punarvasu.

> > > > > > > > > All the statements given in the text Ramayana could

> > be

> > > > > right, it

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > above planetary position is possible (please confirm

> > it -

> > > > whether

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > is possible or not, by checking yourself). But then it

> > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > clear

> > > > > > > > > that the word 'Lagna' is used in Ramayana with the

> > meaning

> > > > > 'Sign',

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > the word 'Prasanna dhee' to denote 'Mercury'.

> > > > > > > > > I might have committed several mistakes in the above

> > > > > > > > derivations, so

> > > > > > > > > before confirming it, I am waiting for the response

> > from

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > scholars.

> > > > > > > > > Note: Possibly I haven't yet done my homework right,

> > so

> > > > pardon

> > > > > > > > me if

> > > > > > > > > I have committed mistakes in the above

> > argumentation.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- In

> > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Kishore ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to astrology, I always wondered why

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > had

> > > > > > > > made

> > > > > > > > > > so much out of the planetary positions of Rama when

> > all

> > > > the four

> > > > > > > > > > brothers have shared the same D1, with Bharata's

> > lagna

> > > > being 9

> > > > > > > > houses

> > > > > > > > > > away from others, a watery and shubha sthana

> > > > nevertheless. More

> > > > > > > > > > poignantly, shatrughan has shared the same D1 yet,

> > he

> > > > enjoyed a

> > > > > > > > normal

> > > > > > > > > > and smooth life, with some victories (such as over

> > > > Ilasura) in

> > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > credit, as against the turbulent life that Rama has

> > > > suffered.

> > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Valmiki Ramayana clearly indicates

> > that in

> > > > Rama's

> > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > Sun is in Pisces, and it clearly states that when

> > > > Lakshmana and

> > > > > > > > > > Satrukhna were born Sun was in Cancer. Thus the

> > Natal

> > > > chart

> > > > > > > > (calling

> > > > > > > > > > it D1 is wrong - because D1 means Sign and NOT natal

> > > > chart) of

> > > > > > > > them

> > > > > > > > > > are NOT same, as you refer to. Further the Lagna

> > also

> > > > differs.

> > > > > > > > For

> > > > > > > > > > Rama the Lagna is Cancer, for Bharata it is Pisces,

> > and

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > Lekshmana

> > > > > > > > > > and Satrukhna we don't know clearly what it was. If

> > > > statements

> > > > > > > > > > available in, currently available Valmiki Ramayana

> > is

> > > > true -

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > Lakshmana and Satrukhana were born 4+ months after

> > the

> > > > birth of

> > > > > > > > Rama

> > > > > > > > > > and so the planetary positions of their chart should

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > differ. If

> > > > > > > > > > you are of the opinion that the statement " When the

> > > > children of

> > > > > > > > > > Sumitra (Lakshmana and Satrukhna) were born Sun was

> > in

> > > > Cancer "

> > > > > > > > present

> > > > > > > > > > in current Valmiki Ramaya is wrong - then it is a

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > thing. Is

> > > > > > > > > > that your argument?

> > > > > > > > > > So in essence the natal chart itself of Rama and

> > > > brothers

> > > > > > > > differ,

> > > > > > > > > > and naturally different results follow.

> > > > > > > > > > > I think the secret lies in the Divisional charts.

> > > > > > > > > > You can think anything - but for sure valimiki was

> > > > unaware of

> > > > > > > > > > 'Divisional charts' even though a possibility

> > > > for 'Divisions'

> > > > > > > > (which

> > > > > > > > > > alone is supported by ancient astrological classics)

> > > > exist. But

> > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > too certainly there is not even a single statement

> > in

> > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > shows that he (the author of that book) was even

> > aware

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > divisions.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > As Visti has pointed out that it is quite possible

> > > > that moon

> > > > > > > > is at

> > > > > > > > > > > the very end of 4th pada of the asterism and this

> > will

> > > > make

> > > > > > > > the Sun

> > > > > > > > > > > being in the last pada of Pisces(possibly) This

> > will

> > > > make the

> > > > > > > > sun

> > > > > > > > > > > also vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > > Now, sun must be betwen 27-30 degrees of the

> > pisces,

> > > > which

> > > > > > > > will take

> > > > > > > > > > > the lagna to complete the same in 12 minutes. The

> > > > remaining

> > > > > > > > lagnas

> > > > > > > > > > > of Aries, Tarurus and Gemini can be complete in

> > > > almost 6

> > > > > > > > hours -

> > > > > > > > > > > not withstanding the 12 minutes above- making the

> > > > abhihjt

> > > > > > > > lagna a

> > > > > > > > > > > possibility. In such an event, the lagna also

> > falls in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > pada of Cancer, which will make lagna also

> > vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > First of all Visti is not part of this group and

> > > > didn't say

> > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > here (are you posting the same message in multiple

> > > > groups?! -

> > > > > > > > ok. you

> > > > > > > > > > might be referring to someone in some other group).

> > Now

> > > > coming

> > > > > > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > arguments about Abhijit etc.

> > > > > > > > > > * For Navami to happen the distance between Sun

> > and

> > > > Moon

> > > > > > > > should be

> > > > > > > > > > more than 96 degrees. That means even if Moon is at

> > the

> > > > end of

> > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu Nakshatra (i.e. 93 degree 20 min), the Sun

> > > > should be

> > > > > > > > beyond

> > > > > > > > > > 2 degree 40 min from end point of Pisces. That means

> > Sun

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > have a

> > > > > > > > > > longitude more than 27 degree 20 min in Pises. [i.e.

> > Sun

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > take 10

> > > > > > > > > > min at least to cover Pisces]. Now Moon being in

> > Rasi

> > > > Sandhi,

> > > > > > > > > > Nakshatra Sandhi and Tithi sandhi, (all showing bad

> > > > results) I

> > > > > > > > don't

> > > > > > > > > > think we should expect that in the chart of an

> > avatar.

> > > > What

> > > > > ever

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > be note the points

> > > > > > > > > > - Sun needs at least 10+ min to cover

> > Pisces.

> > > > > > > > > > - The Sun's longitude cannot be more than

> > 27

> > > > degree 20

> > > > > > > > min.

> > > > > > > > > > * As you rightly pointed out Sun needs 6 hours

> > approx

> > > > to cover

> > > > > > > > Aries,

> > > > > > > > > > Tarus & Gemini. And thus there is a possibility that

> > the

> > > > birth

> > > > > > > > took

> > > > > > > > > > place at Noon - possibly in Abhijit Muhurta -

> > Provided

> > > > the day

> > > > > > > > was a

> > > > > > > > > > near equinox day (i.e. when day and night are almost

> > > > equal).

> > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > comes

> > > > > > > > > > the interesting part - the birth was in Uttarayana -

> > so

> > > > were do

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > think the equinox and solstice would be? Before the

> > 27

> > > > degree

> > > > > > > > position

> > > > > > > > > > of Sun - right - what era could it be - and where

> > was he

> > > > > equinox

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > solstice then - as Kaul ji rightly puts it. So the

> > point

> > > > to be

> > > > > > > > noted

> > > > > > > > > > is that

> > > > > > > > > > - essentially the Abhijit Muhurta argument

> > > > brings in to

> > > > > > > > focus

> > > > > > > > > > the position of Solstice in to consideration.

> > > > > > > > > > What are your opinions on the same? Can it be BC

> > > > 50000+ and

> > > > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > > > your Abhijit argument true? What do you think?

> > > > > > > > > > * Another important question is - if Ra or Ke is

> > in

> > > > > > > > exaltation -

> > > > > > > > > > which of them is in exaltation. I mean is it that

> > when

> > > > Ra is

> > > > > > > > exalted

> > > > > > > > > > then Ke also exalted, increasing the count of

> > exaltation

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > SIX? Is it that Valmiki missed it? If not what is

> > the

> > > > solution

> > > > > > > > to this

> > > > > > > > > > 6 planet problem? If you go by the argument both Own

> > > > house

> > > > > (Swa)

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Exaltation (Uccha) are considered, then what is your

> > > > arguments

> > > > > > > > FORM

> > > > > > > > > > VALMIKI RAMAYANA in support of placing Ma, Ve, Sa in

> > > > some

> > > > > > > > particular

> > > > > > > > > > signs? Yes, I could see that even though you

> > presented

> > > > such an

> > > > > > > > > > argument - but never followed it, by providing the

> > > > supplementary

> > > > > > > > > > evidence. What do you think about this?

> > > > > > > > > > There are other doubts too - but I think this is

> > enough

> > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > current mail.

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > , " kishore

> > > > > > > > patnaik "

> > > > > > > > > > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is a matter of our merits that have been

> > > > accumulated

> > > > > > > > during our

> > > > > > > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > > > > > births that we are spending this Diwali in the

> > chant

> > > > of Rama,

> > > > > > > > rather

> > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > wasting our time otherwise. I wish everyone on the

> > > > group a

> > > > > > > > merry and

> > > > > > > > > > a holy

> > > > > > > > > > > Diwali.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Srimad Ramayana is a depository of several yogic

> > and

> > > > cosmic

> > > > > > > > secrets.

> > > > > > > > > > For

> > > > > > > > > > > eg., Sree Sundara Kanda is directly interpreted as

> > the

> > > > search

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > yogi for

> > > > > > > > > > > the Kundalini downtrodden from Sahasrara to

> > Muladhara.

> > > > In

> > > > > > > > fact, when

> > > > > > > > > > I have

> > > > > > > > > > > raised the question, I have expected the Likes of

> > PVR

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > search for an

> > > > > > > > > > > answer in that angle too,.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to astrology, I always wondered

> > why

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > made so

> > > > > > > > > > > much out of the planetary positions of Rama when

> > all

> > > > the four

> > > > > > > > > > brothers have

> > > > > > > > > > > shared the same D1, with Bharata's lagna being 9

> > > > houses away

> > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > others, a

> > > > > > > > > > > watery and shubha sthana nevertheless. More

> > > > poignantly,

> > > > > > > > > shatrughan has

> > > > > > > > > > > shared the same D1 yet, he enjoyed a normal and

> > smooth

> > > > life,

> > > > > > > > with some

> > > > > > > > > > > victories (such as over Ilasura) in his credit, as

> > > > against the

> > > > > > > > > turbulent

> > > > > > > > > > > life that Rama has suffered.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I think the secret lies in the Divisional charts.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is needless to point out that Moon of Sri Rama

> > > > enjoys a

> > > > > > > > > > Vargottama. As

> > > > > > > > > > > Visti has pointed out that it is quite possible

> > that

> > > > moon is

> > > > > > > > at the

> > > > > > > > > > very end

> > > > > > > > > > > of 4th pada of the asterism and this will make the

> > Sun

> > > > > being in

> > > > > > > > > the last

> > > > > > > > > > > pada of Pisces(possibly) This will make the sun

> > also

> > > > > > > > vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now, sun must be betwen 27-30 degrees of the

> > pisces,

> > > > which

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > take the

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna to complete the same in 12 minutes. The

> > remaining

> > > > > lagnas

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Aries,

> > > > > > > > > > > Tarurus and Gemini can be complete in almost 6

> > hours -

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > withstanding the

> > > > > > > > > > > 12 minutes above- making the abhihjt lagna a

> > > > possibility. In

> > > > > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > an event

> > > > > > > > > > > , the lagna also falls in the first pada of

> > Cancer,

> > > > which

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > make

> > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > also vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now, I leave to the Group to discuss further if I

> > am

> > > > missing

> > > > > > > > > something.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > > > > > > > > > 98492 70729

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

 

I think perhaps this message should have been addressed to Mr. Kaul,

not to me.

 

Finn

 

 

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Finn ji,

> The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means

> join/conjunct/mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means " the one that

> joins/conjuncts/mixes/combines " . There are many words that sprung from

> this root. Look at the following word -

> " Lagna MandalaH " - it means the same as " Rasi Chakra " and means

> 'Zodiac'.

> Mandala = Chakra = Circle

> Lagna = Rasi = Sign

> Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also means 'Sign

> Circle' or in other words both are other names for the Ecliptic, the

> zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any standard

> Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna' can

> means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the

> following Nirukti -

> 'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which

> join/conjunct/mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna'; certainly the

> word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets joins

> (traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every sign

> means 'Lagna'.

> Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'

> meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/mix/combine (or in other words

> shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna' can

> refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'.

> Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition such as

> 'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called Lagna'.

> Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated with the

> word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the word 'rising'

> that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the horizon,

> the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here too

> and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant' acceptable.

> Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as done

> in Prasnamarga), the word 'Lagna' loses all its association with

> 'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!

> Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora Lagna',

> 'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which are NOT

> AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore in such

> contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes erroneous.

> Considering all these points it becomes clear that accepting the

> meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana' context is a

> truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and Dictionaries.

> Hope this helps.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Finn ji,

> > The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the meaning 'Sign' to

> > the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next post. Now

> > coming to your next argument -

> > ==>

> > > However, even if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means

> > > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very

> > > clearly been stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was

> > > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of

> > > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and

> > > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.

> > <==

> > It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I will

> > re-state it here.

> > " kuleere abyudite ravav " It could be a simple sandhi mistake of a

> > missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be " kuleere

> > abyuditaraavav " , meaning " Mars (aara) was in Capricorn (Kuleera) " .

> > Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is given in Sanskrit

> > Nikhandus as " Kuleero Nakra Karkatau " meaning " The word Kuleera is

> > used for Capricon and Cancer " . The auther of Hridyapadha vyakhya of

> > Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various Nikhandus and

> > argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is also very

> > popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows that apart

> > from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the position

> > of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from the

> > description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and Mercury

> > are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the Nakshatra

> > of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it becomes

> > clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days, and also

> > that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only the

> > planetary position.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > >

> > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > Namaskar!

> > > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree that the

> > > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are concoctions

> > > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a period of

> > > second century BCE.

> > > However, you have also said

> > >

> > > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement given is

> > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at that

> > > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

> > > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

> > > Nirukti of the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the

> > > word Lagna) ->

> > >

> > > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr useless or

> > > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware of the

> > > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of birth/event.

> > > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya

Sidhanta

> > > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work. The

> > > complete sholka is " Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne

> > > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite ravav " --

> > > 1/18/15

> > >

> > > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However, even

> > > if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign, how do

> > > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly been

> > > stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was in Kuleera

> > > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan

Rama in

> > > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana could

not

> > > be in Karkata in any case.

> > > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was born in

> > > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and (iii-iv)

> > > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in " Sarpi " i.e. Ashlesha. They are in a

> > > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in

Karkata,

> > > who are younger by just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and Bharata

> > > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!

> > >

> > > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been a

> > > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.

> > > With regards,

> > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > ==>

> > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > Valmiki

> > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

either

> > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > <==

> > > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is re-

> > > written

> > > > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is the correct

> > > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently available

> > > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly the

work

> > > of

> > > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a planetary

> > > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!!

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any

> > > obscurity, we

> > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation came

into

> > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-Avtar

and

> > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > <==

> > > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said that -

it is

> > > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in the recent

> > > > past. He just took some samples from the recent history

known to

> > > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that fulfills his

> > > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic poet' who

> > > knew

> > > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who mistook to

> > > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men with a tail

> > > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in Ramayana

> > > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we had at

> > > that

> > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles was the

> > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > Sidhantika!

> > > > <==

> > > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who wrote

> > > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts - not that

> > > he is

> > > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary position

> > > of

> > > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and mentions

> > > that

> > > > it was Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami. No great

> > > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much, and

> > > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of the

> > > people in

> > > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary position

> > > using

> > > > that.

> > > > If you are bewildered by the statement that " ALL THE PLANETS ARE

> > > > MENTIONED " , then here goes the clarification:

> > > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated

> > > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.

> > > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not clear.

> > > > Then comes the interesting part -

> > > > 4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement given

> > > is

> > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at that

> > > time

> > > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

Sign -

> > > as

> > > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

Nirukti of

> > > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the word

> > > Lagna) -

> > > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!

> > > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and Satrukhna

it is

> > > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that " Kuleere

> > > > Abhuditeaaravo " means " Arra (Mars) was in Capricon (Kuleera) " !!

> > > Which

> > > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion about 'Sun in

> > > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the

position

> > > of

> > > > Mars is clearly stated!

> > > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which as per

> > > the

> > > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes clarified. Sa

is in

> > > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus!

> > > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the

confusion

> > > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused by our

> > > > ignorance and lack of effort to understand the facts!

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > > , " Avtar Krishen

> > > Kaul "

> > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156 (Gregorian

> > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what I

> > > mean. The

> > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.>

> > > > >

> > > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of yourself by

> > > such

> > > > > comments!

> > > > >

> > > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary position of

> > > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the

planetary

> > > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to two

> > > > > conclusions:

> > > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March 14, 157

> > > BC at

> > > > > 9-15 PM

> > > > > or

> > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > Valmiki

> > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

either

> > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > >

> > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any

> > > obscurity, we

> > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation came

into

> > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-Avtar

and

> > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological knowledge and

> > > latest

> > > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish jyotishi

> > > has

> > > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC into the

> > > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine incarnation

> > > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!

> > > > >

> > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we had at

> > > that

> > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles was the

> > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless astronomical

> > > work

> > > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so much so

> > > that

> > > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!

> > > > > QED/QEF

> > > > > With regards,

> > > > > AKK

> > > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

(Gregorian

> > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what I

> > > mean.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.

> > > > > > Let us look at the core argument of Kaul ji -

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > > called

> > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa i.e. the

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of Bhagwan

> > > Rama.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki Ramayana

> > > which

> > > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa'; I hope

> > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same text. ;=)

> > > Actually

> > > > > if

> > > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the birth

> > > took

> > > > > place

> > > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu.

> > > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the word

'Lagna'

> > > is a

> > > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta

defenition

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc, even

> > > though

> > > > > the

> > > > > > second meaning became popular later.

> > > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this text - was

> > > > > describing

> > > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to him -

> > > possibly

> > > > > a

> > > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period, and

that is

> > > why

> > > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine one.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it may

> > > better to

> > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

subject.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > I agree - but is it not that these discussions itself is

> > > part of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > investigations into the subject?

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions regarding

> > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > possible

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions

> > > to

> > > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -

> > > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas & Tantric texts

> > > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature, Epics,

> > > Puranas

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data around,

and

> > > we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions agree

> > > with

> > > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the birth

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > description

> > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana with

> > > the

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and relevant

> > > > > information.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing - our

> > > major

> > > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki

> > > Ramayana'

> > > > > (and

> > > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not forget the

> > > main

> > > > > area

> > > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end of our

> > > study,

> > > > > for

> > > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come up.

We

> > > > > will

> > > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further

> > > > > investigations

> > > > > > into other areas. :=)

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Finn

Wandahl "

> > > > > > <finn.wandahl@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions regarding

> > > the

> > > > > origin

> > > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it may

> > > better to

> > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions regarding

> > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > possible

> > > > > it may

> > > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions to

> > > similar

> > > > > > > descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the birth

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > description

> > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana with

> > > the

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and relevant

> > > > > information.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Finn

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit that

> > > these

> > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are later day

> > > > > > > > > interpolations

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that the

> > > whole

> > > > > ramayana

> > > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC and 2

> > > AD?

> > > > > With the

> > > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions,

> > > Ardhasastra

> > > > > (of

> > > > > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I believe that

> > > it

> > > > > is clear

> > > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD for

> > > sure -

> > > > > or better

> > > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself.

> > > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological reference in

> > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the line of

> > > all

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly superstitions.

> > > Actually

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT AT ALL

> > > > > written by

> > > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid brahmins of

> > > sunga

> > > > > period.

> > > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such a text?!!

> > > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact that -

> > > The

> > > > > whole

> > > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text created with a

> > > > > purpose -

> > > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD.

Even the

> > > > > > > > astronomical references in it is going in the same

> > > direction.

> > > > > If there

> > > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently available

> > > one (as

> > > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata), then that text is buried in

> > > dept

> > > > > by the

> > > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a purpose and

> > > wanted

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by calling

> > > Buddha

> > > > > a thief

> > > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make of that

> > > era

> > > > > (BC 200

> > > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary works as

> > > > > well.

> > > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how about

> > > going

> > > > > against

> > > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures who in a

> > > > > futile

> > > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin projecting,

> > > Yaga

> > > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient scripts and

> > > even

> > > > > tried to

> > > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic astrological

> > > signs

> > > > > also into

> > > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't it that

> > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same?

> > > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically acceptable

> > > path,

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > enough evidence in support.

> > > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all

> > > authentic.

> > > > > Giving it

> > > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is ignorance.

> > > Rama

> > > > > is god

> > > > > > > > or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of a made

> > > up

> > > > > text like

> > > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written by

> > > Valmiki

> > > > > for sure

> > > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of partiality and

> > > hatred

> > > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was a great

> > > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta, and

> > > > > ascribing the

> > > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available Ramayana on

> > > him

> > > > > is a

> > > > > > > > SIN, and an insult of that great sage.

> > > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " Avtar

> > > > > Krishen Kaul "

> > > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following argument and

> > > > > > > > > possibilities ->

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to ponder on

the

> > > > > following

> > > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi

Mahakavya

> > > > > i.e. the

> > > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history and

> > > Maharshi

> > > > > Valamiki

> > > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated much

> > > earlier

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed much

> > > earlier

> > > > > than

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:

> > > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or Mangal Shani

> > > etc.

> > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > in the VJ

> > > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the

> > > Mahabharata

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any Mangal

> > > Shani

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas prior to the

> > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of Bhagwan

> > > Rama,

> > > > > > Bharata,

> > > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki Ramayana?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of all the

> > > > > astronomers

> > > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the irreconcilable

> > > facts

> > > > > that if

> > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon in

> > > Karakta in

> > > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been Navmki

> > > tithi

> > > > > or vice-

> > > > > > > > > versa?

> > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > > called

> > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa i.e.

> > > the

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> > > Bhagwan

> > > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never have

been

> > > in

> > > > > Karkata

> > > > > > > > > if the sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even Mina!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile these

> > > > > irreconcilable

> > > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing stock of

> > > > > ourselves!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit that

> > > these

> > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are later

day

> > > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing overzealous

> > > > > astrologers who

> > > > > > > > > did not know even this much of astronomy that if the

sun

> > > of

> > > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could never have

> > > been

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His

siblings!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT THAT WE DO

> > > NOT

> > > > > HAVE A

> > > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS

> > > INCREASED

> > > > > SINCE IT

> > > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA KARTUM

> > > > > SAMARTH AND

> > > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is that it

> > > means

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa etc.

did not

> > > > > > believe in

> > > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.

> > > > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji, Kishor ji, Finn ji,

> > > > > > > > > > I request you to look in to the following argument

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > possibilities -

> > > > > > > > > > * The Yaga started at the beginning of Vasanta

> > > Ritu.

> > > > > And

> > > > > > > > > possibly

> > > > > > > > > > ended near the end of Vasanta Ritu. In the 12th

> > > Nakshatra

> > > > > month

> > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > the end date of Yaga reached (i.e. when 280+ days,

the

> > > > > normal

> > > > > > > > > period

> > > > > > > > > > of pregnancy is completed), and when the year was

> > > going to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > completed, Rama and brothers where born.

> > > > > > > > > > * From the mention of Navami Tithi and Punarvasu

> > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > clear that Moon was some where near 27 degrees in

> > > Pisces.

> > > > > > > > > > * It is at the Vishu date (i.e. when Sun is in

the

> > > > > vernal

> > > > > > > > > equinox)

> > > > > > > > > > that Vasanta Ritu bigins.

> > > > > > > > > > * Considering the above 3 points it is clear that

> > > VERNAL

> > > > > > EQUINOX

> > > > > > > > > > WAS SOMEWHERE AFTER (NEAR) 27 DEGREE PISCES at the

> > > time of

> > > > > > birth of

> > > > > > > > > > Rama! Can we have a bit more clarify on this? Let us

> > > > > consider the

> > > > > > > > > > following point -

> > > > > > > > > > * Possibly, from the beginning of Vasnata Ritu, it

> > > is

> > > > > after, 60

> > > > > > > > > > days (Vasata Ritu) + 280 days = 340 days, that Rama

> > > was

> > > > > born.

> > > > > > > > > > Completion of the year could take approximately

> > > 365.2425 -

> > > > > 340 =

> > > > > > > > > > 25.2425 days more. Means the Ayanamsa (if at all

used)

> > > was

> > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > tally

> > > > > > > > > > with this. In any case it is clear that " at the time

> > > of

> > > > > Rama's

> > > > > > > > > birth

> > > > > > > > > > Sun was between solstice and vernal equinox " !

(Because

> > > the

> > > > > next

> > > > > > > > > > Vasnata Ritu was yet to bigin)

> > > > > > > > > > So what is the important derivation and

conclusion?

> > > > > Here it

> > > > > > is -

> > > > > > > > > > * If this is the case, certainly either -

> > > > > > > > > > 1)it is the description of a recent planetary

> > > > > position

> > > > > > > > > (possibly

> > > > > > > > > > between 250 BC and 250 AD) OR

> > > > > > > > > > 2)the description of a planetary position at

> > > least

> > > > > 26000

> > > > > > > > > years

> > > > > > > > > > before!

> > > > > > > > > > Because the same position of equinox can repeat

> > > only

> > > > > after

> > > > > > > > > 26000

> > > > > > > > > > years aprox.

> > > > > > > > > > I discard the 2nd choice simply as absurd and

> > > > > impossible -

> > > > > > > > > > considering out understanding of the archeological

and

> > > > > linguistic

> > > > > > > > > > history of ancient india.

> > > > > > > > > > So the revelation is that - the planetary position

> > > given

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > > > > > is the description of a RECENT planetary position -

> > > > > possibly

> > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > 250 BC and 250 AD!! (It is the possible period of

> > > origin

> > > > > > indicated

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > various references present in Valmiki Ramayana

> > > itself). Is

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > year during this period which satisfies the

> > > conditions -

> > > > > provided

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > the text? The points that should become true are -

> > > > > > > > > > * 5 planets should be either in own sign or

> > > exaltation.

> > > > > > > > > > * Jupitor and Moon should be in Cancer

> > > > > > > > > > * It should be Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > > The extra points that could be considered are -

> > > > > > > > > > * The word 'Lagna' could means 'Sign' as well.

> > > > > Therefore it is

> > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > necessary that Rama's Asc should be Cancer. (But

if it

> > > is

> > > > > so, in

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > the slokas present in Valmiki Ramayana the

> > > word 'Lagna'

> > > > > should

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > 'Sign' itself)

> > > > > > > > > > * The word 'Prasanna dhee' used in Bharata's chart

> > > > > could mean

> > > > > > > > > > Mercury.

> > > > > > > > > > * Since Valmiki Ramayana follows the Vedic

path, as

> > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > naturally expected, it could be a Tropical horoscope

> > > > > instead of a

> > > > > > > > > > Nirayana horoscope.

> > > > > > > > > > Is there a possible year in between BC 250 and AD

> > > 250

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > satisfies these conditions? Could it be: -157 or I

> > > request

> > > > > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > > > > > and others to verify the following planetary position

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > possible

> > > > > > > > > > date, using Tropical Zodiac-

> > > > > > > > > > * Ju and Moon in Cancer

> > > > > > > > > > * Sun and Me in Pisces

> > > > > > > > > > * Sa in Aquarious

> > > > > > > > > > * Ma in Capricon

> > > > > > > > > > * Ve in Tarus

> > > > > > > > > > * Ra & Ke in Ge-Sg axis

> > > > > > > > > > * Asc Scorpio!

> > > > > > > > > > * Suklapaksha Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > > Note that all the conditions given in the text

> > > Ramayana

> > > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > true,

> > > > > > > > > > it the following planetary position is possible. For

> > > > > example -

> > > > > > > > > > * Ma, Sa, Ve are in own sign & Ju, Ma are in

> > > exaltation -

> > > > > > making

> > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > planets in own sign or exaltation.

> > > > > > > > > > * The tithi is Suklapaksha Navami and Nakshatra

> > > > > Punarvasu.

> > > > > > > > > > All the statements given in the text Ramayana could

> > > be

> > > > > > right, it

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > above planetary position is possible (please confirm

> > > it -

> > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > is possible or not, by checking yourself). But

then it

> > > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > clear

> > > > > > > > > > that the word 'Lagna' is used in Ramayana with the

> > > meaning

> > > > > > 'Sign',

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > the word 'Prasanna dhee' to denote 'Mercury'.

> > > > > > > > > > I might have committed several mistakes in the

above

> > > > > > > > > derivations, so

> > > > > > > > > > before confirming it, I am waiting for the response

> > > from

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > > scholars.

> > > > > > > > > > Note: Possibly I haven't yet done my homework

right,

> > > so

> > > > > pardon

> > > > > > > > > me if

> > > > > > > > > > I have committed mistakes in the above

> > > argumentation.

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kishore ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to astrology, I always wondered

why

> > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > made

> > > > > > > > > > > so much out of the planetary positions of Rama when

> > > all

> > > > > the four

> > > > > > > > > > > brothers have shared the same D1, with Bharata's

> > > lagna

> > > > > being 9

> > > > > > > > > houses

> > > > > > > > > > > away from others, a watery and shubha sthana

> > > > > nevertheless. More

> > > > > > > > > > > poignantly, shatrughan has shared the same D1 yet,

> > > he

> > > > > enjoyed a

> > > > > > > > > normal

> > > > > > > > > > > and smooth life, with some victories (such as over

> > > > > Ilasura) in

> > > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > > credit, as against the turbulent life that Rama has

> > > > > suffered.

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Valmiki Ramayana clearly indicates

> > > that in

> > > > > Rama's

> > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > Sun is in Pisces, and it clearly states that when

> > > > > Lakshmana and

> > > > > > > > > > > Satrukhna were born Sun was in Cancer. Thus the

> > > Natal

> > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > (calling

> > > > > > > > > > > it D1 is wrong - because D1 means Sign and NOT

natal

> > > > > chart) of

> > > > > > > > > them

> > > > > > > > > > > are NOT same, as you refer to. Further the Lagna

> > > also

> > > > > differs.

> > > > > > > > > For

> > > > > > > > > > > Rama the Lagna is Cancer, for Bharata it is Pisces,

> > > and

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > Lekshmana

> > > > > > > > > > > and Satrukhna we don't know clearly what it was. If

> > > > > statements

> > > > > > > > > > > available in, currently available Valmiki Ramayana

> > > is

> > > > > true -

> > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmana and Satrukhana were born 4+ months after

> > > the

> > > > > birth of

> > > > > > > > > Rama

> > > > > > > > > > > and so the planetary positions of their chart

should

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > differ. If

> > > > > > > > > > > you are of the opinion that the statement " When the

> > > > > children of

> > > > > > > > > > > Sumitra (Lakshmana and Satrukhna) were born Sun was

> > > in

> > > > > Cancer "

> > > > > > > > > present

> > > > > > > > > > > in current Valmiki Ramaya is wrong - then it is a

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > thing. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > that your argument?

> > > > > > > > > > > So in essence the natal chart itself of Rama and

> > > > > brothers

> > > > > > > > > differ,

> > > > > > > > > > > and naturally different results follow.

> > > > > > > > > > > > I think the secret lies in the Divisional charts.

> > > > > > > > > > > You can think anything - but for sure valimiki

was

> > > > > unaware of

> > > > > > > > > > > 'Divisional charts' even though a possibility

> > > > > for 'Divisions'

> > > > > > > > > (which

> > > > > > > > > > > alone is supported by ancient astrological

classics)

> > > > > exist. But

> > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > too certainly there is not even a single statement

> > > in

> > > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > shows that he (the author of that book) was even

> > > aware

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > divisions.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > As Visti has pointed out that it is quite

possible

> > > > > that moon

> > > > > > > > > is at

> > > > > > > > > > > > the very end of 4th pada of the asterism and this

> > > will

> > > > > make

> > > > > > > > > the Sun

> > > > > > > > > > > > being in the last pada of Pisces(possibly) This

> > > will

> > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > sun

> > > > > > > > > > > > also vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, sun must be betwen 27-30 degrees of the

> > > pisces,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > will take

> > > > > > > > > > > > the lagna to complete the same in 12 minutes. The

> > > > > remaining

> > > > > > > > > lagnas

> > > > > > > > > > > > of Aries, Tarurus and Gemini can be complete in

> > > > > almost 6

> > > > > > > > > hours -

> > > > > > > > > > > > not withstanding the 12 minutes above- making

the

> > > > > abhihjt

> > > > > > > > > lagna a

> > > > > > > > > > > > possibility. In such an event, the lagna also

> > > falls in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > > pada of Cancer, which will make lagna also

> > > vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > First of all Visti is not part of this group and

> > > > > didn't say

> > > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > > here (are you posting the same message in multiple

> > > > > groups?! -

> > > > > > > > > ok. you

> > > > > > > > > > > might be referring to someone in some other group).

> > > Now

> > > > > coming

> > > > > > > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > > arguments about Abhijit etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > * For Navami to happen the distance between Sun

> > > and

> > > > > Moon

> > > > > > > > > should be

> > > > > > > > > > > more than 96 degrees. That means even if Moon is at

> > > the

> > > > > end of

> > > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu Nakshatra (i.e. 93 degree 20 min), the

Sun

> > > > > should be

> > > > > > > > > beyond

> > > > > > > > > > > 2 degree 40 min from end point of Pisces. That

means

> > > Sun

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > have a

> > > > > > > > > > > longitude more than 27 degree 20 min in Pises.

[i.e.

> > > Sun

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > take 10

> > > > > > > > > > > min at least to cover Pisces]. Now Moon being in

> > > Rasi

> > > > > Sandhi,

> > > > > > > > > > > Nakshatra Sandhi and Tithi sandhi, (all showing bad

> > > > > results) I

> > > > > > > > > don't

> > > > > > > > > > > think we should expect that in the chart of an

> > > avatar.

> > > > > What

> > > > > > ever

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > be note the points

> > > > > > > > > > > - Sun needs at least 10+ min to cover

> > > Pisces.

> > > > > > > > > > > - The Sun's longitude cannot be more than

> > > 27

> > > > > degree 20

> > > > > > > > > min.

> > > > > > > > > > > * As you rightly pointed out Sun needs 6 hours

> > > approx

> > > > > to cover

> > > > > > > > > Aries,

> > > > > > > > > > > Tarus & Gemini. And thus there is a possibility

that

> > > the

> > > > > birth

> > > > > > > > > took

> > > > > > > > > > > place at Noon - possibly in Abhijit Muhurta -

> > > Provided

> > > > > the day

> > > > > > > > > was a

> > > > > > > > > > > near equinox day (i.e. when day and night are

almost

> > > > > equal).

> > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > comes

> > > > > > > > > > > the interesting part - the birth was in

Uttarayana -

> > > so

> > > > > were do

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think the equinox and solstice would be? Before the

> > > 27

> > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > position

> > > > > > > > > > > of Sun - right - what era could it be - and where

> > > was he

> > > > > > equinox

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > solstice then - as Kaul ji rightly puts it. So the

> > > point

> > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > noted

> > > > > > > > > > > is that

> > > > > > > > > > > - essentially the Abhijit Muhurta argument

> > > > > brings in to

> > > > > > > > > focus

> > > > > > > > > > > the position of Solstice in to consideration.

> > > > > > > > > > > What are your opinions on the same? Can it

be BC

> > > > > 50000+ and

> > > > > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > > > > your Abhijit argument true? What do you think?

> > > > > > > > > > > * Another important question is - if Ra or Ke is

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > exaltation -

> > > > > > > > > > > which of them is in exaltation. I mean is it that

> > > when

> > > > > Ra is

> > > > > > > > > exalted

> > > > > > > > > > > then Ke also exalted, increasing the count of

> > > exaltation

> > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > SIX? Is it that Valmiki missed it? If not what is

> > > the

> > > > > solution

> > > > > > > > > to this

> > > > > > > > > > > 6 planet problem? If you go by the argument both

Own

> > > > > house

> > > > > > (Swa)

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Exaltation (Uccha) are considered, then what is

your

> > > > > arguments

> > > > > > > > > FORM

> > > > > > > > > > > VALMIKI RAMAYANA in support of placing Ma, Ve,

Sa in

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > particular

> > > > > > > > > > > signs? Yes, I could see that even though you

> > > presented

> > > > > such an

> > > > > > > > > > > argument - but never followed it, by providing the

> > > > > supplementary

> > > > > > > > > > > evidence. What do you think about this?

> > > > > > > > > > > There are other doubts too - but I think this is

> > > enough

> > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > current mail.

> > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > > , " kishore

> > > > > > > > > patnaik "

> > > > > > > > > > > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > It is a matter of our merits that have been

> > > > > accumulated

> > > > > > > > > during our

> > > > > > > > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > > > > > > births that we are spending this Diwali in the

> > > chant

> > > > > of Rama,

> > > > > > > > > rather

> > > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > > wasting our time otherwise. I wish everyone on

the

> > > > > group a

> > > > > > > > > merry and

> > > > > > > > > > > a holy

> > > > > > > > > > > > Diwali.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Srimad Ramayana is a depository of several yogic

> > > and

> > > > > cosmic

> > > > > > > > > secrets.

> > > > > > > > > > > For

> > > > > > > > > > > > eg., Sree Sundara Kanda is directly

interpreted as

> > > the

> > > > > search

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > yogi for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the Kundalini downtrodden from Sahasrara to

> > > Muladhara.

> > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > fact, when

> > > > > > > > > > > I have

> > > > > > > > > > > > raised the question, I have expected the Likes of

> > > PVR

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > search for an

> > > > > > > > > > > > answer in that angle too,.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to astrology, I always wondered

> > > why

> > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > > made so

> > > > > > > > > > > > much out of the planetary positions of Rama when

> > > all

> > > > > the four

> > > > > > > > > > > brothers have

> > > > > > > > > > > > shared the same D1, with Bharata's lagna being 9

> > > > > houses away

> > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > others, a

> > > > > > > > > > > > watery and shubha sthana nevertheless. More

> > > > > poignantly,

> > > > > > > > > > shatrughan has

> > > > > > > > > > > > shared the same D1 yet, he enjoyed a normal and

> > > smooth

> > > > > life,

> > > > > > > > > with some

> > > > > > > > > > > > victories (such as over Ilasura) in his

credit, as

> > > > > against the

> > > > > > > > > > turbulent

> > > > > > > > > > > > life that Rama has suffered.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I think the secret lies in the Divisional charts.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > It is needless to point out that Moon of Sri

Rama

> > > > > enjoys a

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargottama. As

> > > > > > > > > > > > Visti has pointed out that it is quite possible

> > > that

> > > > > moon is

> > > > > > > > > at the

> > > > > > > > > > > very end

> > > > > > > > > > > > of 4th pada of the asterism and this will make

the

> > > Sun

> > > > > > being in

> > > > > > > > > > the last

> > > > > > > > > > > > pada of Pisces(possibly) This will make the sun

> > > also

> > > > > > > > > vargottama.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, sun must be betwen 27-30 degrees of the

> > > pisces,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > take the

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna to complete the same in 12 minutes. The

> > > remaining

> > > > > > lagnas

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Aries,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tarurus and Gemini can be complete in almost 6

> > > hours -

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > withstanding the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 12 minutes above- making the abhihjt lagna a

> > > > > possibility. In

> > > > > > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > > an event

> > > > > > > > > > > > , the lagna also falls in the first pada of

> > > Cancer,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > make

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > also vargottama.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I leave to the Group to discuss further if I

> > > am

> > > > > missing

> > > > > > > > > > something.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > regards,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > > > > > > > > > > 98492 70729

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Shri Sreenadh ji,

Namaskar!

You are talking of an event of second century BCE. The Surya

Sidhanta, which gives the mothodology of calculating " lagna " was

very much in vogue then. When you are using the word Lagna in the

context of planetary positions vis-a-vis some horoscope/birth chart,

it is unimaginable that instead of the common interpretation of the

word Lagna i.e. the sign rising at a particular time,

the " astrologer " concerned would have resorted to some other meaning

of that word! He could very well have used the word " rashi " instead

of Lagna then.

Secondly, to interpet Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched, to

say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as

Karkata!

Then you are also ascribing a " misprint " or some problem

with " Sandhi " for the word " abyudyete ravav " and interpreted it as

the description of Mars in Capricorn! That also is far fetched!

 

If you are using " Lagna " for signs, then you cannot help placing

five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what the

ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, " nakshatre aditi daivatye

svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna

saha " Here you can club the words as " panchasu graheshu karkate

lagne, vakpatav induna saha " and interpret them as " five planets

were in Karkata rashi, which included the Moon and Jupiter " . You

cannot interpret " lagna " as sign in one place and at the same time

as lagna i.e. aschendant in another place in one and the same

chapter.

 

The maximum difficulty that arises out of this hypothesis is that in

second century BCE, there was no methodology of calculating planets

correctly, whether it was India or any other country! India, on the

other hand, was saddled with the Surya Sidhanta, which is

fundamentally the most incorrect work. So it is just a possibility

that the astrologer concerned could have calculated the planetary

positions as per the Surya Sidhanta and then implanted them in the

Valmiki Ramayana! Those calculatons can give very surprising

results!

 

Secondly, we cannot overlok the fact that " Adyatma Ramayana " , which

you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas

" madhumasse site pakshe navmyam karkate shubhe

punarvasu sahite uchasthe grahapanchake

mesham pooshani samprapte pushpavrishti samakule aviraseej jagan

nathah parmatma sanatanah " (1/3/14-15)

 

A running translation of these shlokas is

" In the month of Madhu, shukla paksha --bright half--in navmi tithi

and punarvasu nakshara, when five planets were exalted, the sun was

in Mesha, the Eternal Lord of the worlds, Parmatma, incarnated.... "

 

 

1. Here the sun has specifically been put in Mesha but at the same

time it is Madhu masa -- which is an astronomical impossibility!

 

2. Five planets are exalted but there is no mention that any planet

is in its own rashi.

 

3. Though there is no menion of Karkata lagna or the Moon in

Karkata, but if the Sun is in Mesha and it is Navmi tithi, it means

that even if the sun is in 1 degree of Mesha the Moon has to be at a

distance of more than 96 degrees from the same. Thus the Moon will

be in Karkata 7 degrees to Karkata 19 degrees. But then Punarvasu

nakshatra ranges from Mithuna 20 degrees to Karkata 3-20. Thus it

is again an astronomical impossibility.

 

In short, whichever way you look at it, whether it is the Valmiki

Ramayana or the Adyatma Ramayana, the astronomical Rashi position

of the planets cannot be justifed at all!

With regards,

AKK

 

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Finn ji,

> The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means

> join/conjunct/mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means " the one

that

> joins/conjuncts/mixes/combines " . There are many words that sprung

from

> this root. Look at the following word -

> " Lagna MandalaH " - it means the same as " Rasi Chakra " and means

> 'Zodiac'.

> Mandala = Chakra = Circle

> Lagna = Rasi = Sign

> Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also

means 'Sign

> Circle' or in other words both are other names for the Ecliptic,

the

> zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any

standard

> Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna' can

> means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the

> following Nirukti -

> 'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which

> join/conjunct/mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna'; certainly

the

> word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets

joins

> (traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every

sign

> means 'Lagna'.

> Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'

> meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/mix/combine (or in other words

> shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna' can

> refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'.

> Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition

such as

> 'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called

Lagna'.

> Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated with

the

> word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the word 'rising'

> that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the

horizon,

> the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here too

> and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant'

acceptable.

> Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as

done

> in Prasnamarga), the word 'Lagna' loses all its association with

> 'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!

> Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora Lagna',

> 'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which are

NOT

> AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore in

such

> contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes

erroneous.

> Considering all these points it becomes clear that accepting the

> meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana' context

is a

> truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and

Dictionaries.

> Hope this helps.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Finn ji,

> > The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the

meaning 'Sign' to

> > the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next post.

Now

> > coming to your next argument -

> > ==>

> > > However, even if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna

means

> > > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has

very

> > > clearly been stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun

was

> > > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of

> > > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana

and

> > > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.

> > <==

> > It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I

will

> > re-state it here.

> > " kuleere abyudite ravav " It could be a simple sandhi mistake

of a

> > missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be " kuleere

> > abyuditaraavav " , meaning " Mars (aara) was in Capricorn

(Kuleera) " .

> > Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is given in Sanskrit

> > Nikhandus as " Kuleero Nakra Karkatau " meaning " The word Kuleera

is

> > used for Capricon and Cancer " . The auther of Hridyapadha vyakhya

of

> > Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various

Nikhandus and

> > argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is also

very

> > popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows that

apart

> > from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the

position

> > of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from the

> > description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and

Mercury

> > are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the

Nakshatra

> > of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it

becomes

> > clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days, and

also

> > that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only the

> > planetary position.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Avtar Krishen

Kaul "

> > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > >

> > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > Namaskar!

> > > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree that

the

> > > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are

concoctions

> > > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a period

of

> > > second century BCE.

> > > However, you have also said

> > >

> > > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

given is

> > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at

that

> > > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna

means

> > > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries

and

> > > Nirukti of the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of

the

> > > word Lagna) ->

> > >

> > > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr

useless or

> > > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware of

the

> > > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of

birth/event.

> > > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya

Sidhanta

> > > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work.

The

> > > complete sholka is " Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne

> > > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite

ravav " --

> > > 1/18/15

> > >

> > > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However,

even

> > > if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign,

how do

> > > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly

been

> > > stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was in

Kuleera

> > > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan

Rama in

> > > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana

could not

> > > be in Karkata in any case.

> > > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was born

in

> > > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and (iii-

iv)

> > > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in " Sarpi " i.e. Ashlesha. They are

in a

> > > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in

Karkata,

> > > who are younger by just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and

Bharata

> > > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!

> > >

> > > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been a

> > > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.

> > > With regards,

> > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > ==>

> > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > Valmiki

> > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

either

> > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > <==

> > > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is

re-

> > > written

> > > > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is the

correct

> > > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently

available

> > > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly

the work

> > > of

> > > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a

planetary

> > > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!!

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any

> > > obscurity, we

> > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation

came into

> > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-

Avtar and

> > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > <==

> > > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said that -

it is

> > > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in the

recent

> > > > past. He just took some samples from the recent history

known to

> > > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that

fulfills his

> > > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic poet'

who

> > > knew

> > > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who

mistook to

> > > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men with a

tail

> > > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in

Ramayana

> > > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we

had at

> > > that

> > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

was the

> > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > Sidhantika!

> > > > <==

> > > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who

wrote

> > > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts - not

that

> > > he is

> > > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary

position

> > > of

> > > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and

mentions

> > > that

> > > > it was Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami. No

great

> > > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much, and

> > > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of the

> > > people in

> > > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary

position

> > > using

> > > > that.

> > > > If you are bewildered by the statement that " ALL THE

PLANETS ARE

> > > > MENTIONED " , then here goes the clarification:

> > > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated

> > > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.

> > > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not

clear.

> > > > Then comes the interesting part -

> > > > 4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

given

> > > is

> > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at

that

> > > time

> > > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

Sign -

> > > as

> > > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

Nirukti of

> > > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the word

> > > Lagna) -

> > > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!

> > > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and

Satrukhna it is

> > > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that " Kuleere

> > > > Abhuditeaaravo " means " Arra (Mars) was in Capricon

(Kuleera) " !!

> > > Which

> > > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion

about 'Sun in

> > > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the

position

> > > of

> > > > Mars is clearly stated!

> > > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which

as per

> > > the

> > > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes clarified.

Sa is in

> > > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus!

> > > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the

confusion

> > > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused by

our

> > > > ignorance and lack of effort to understand the facts!

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > > , " Avtar

Krishen

> > > Kaul "

> > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

(Gregorian

> > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what

I

> > > mean. The

> > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.>

> > > > >

> > > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of

yourself by

> > > such

> > > > > comments!

> > > > >

> > > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary position

of

> > > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the

planetary

> > > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to

two

> > > > > conclusions:

> > > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March 14,

157

> > > BC at

> > > > > 9-15 PM

> > > > > or

> > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > Valmiki

> > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

either

> > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > >

> > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any

> > > obscurity, we

> > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation

came into

> > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-

Avtar and

> > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological knowledge

and

> > > latest

> > > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish

jyotishi

> > > has

> > > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC into

the

> > > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine incarnation

> > > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!

> > > > >

> > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we

had at

> > > that

> > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

was the

> > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless

astronomical

> > > work

> > > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so much

so

> > > that

> > > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!

> > > > > QED/QEF

> > > > > With regards,

> > > > > AKK

> > > > > --- In

, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

(Gregorian

> > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see

what I

> > > mean.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in

Ramayana.

> > > > > > Let us look at the core argument of Kaul ji -

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > > called

> > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

i.e. the

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

Bhagwan

> > > Rama.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki

Ramayana

> > > which

> > > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa'; I

hope

> > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same text. ;=)

> > > Actually

> > > > > if

> > > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the

birth

> > > took

> > > > > place

> > > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu.

> > > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the

word 'Lagna'

> > > is a

> > > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta

defenition

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc,

even

> > > though

> > > > > the

> > > > > > second meaning became popular later.

> > > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this text -

was

> > > > > describing

> > > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to him -

 

> > > possibly

> > > > > a

> > > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period, and

that is

> > > why

> > > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine one.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it

may

> > > better to

> > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

subject.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > I agree - but is it not that these discussions itself

is

> > > part of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > investigations into the subject?

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions

regarding

> > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > possible

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these horoscope-

descriptions

> > > to

> > > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -

> > > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas & Tantric texts

> > > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature, Epics,

> > > Puranas

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data

around, and

> > > we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions

agree

> > > with

> > > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the

birth

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > description

> > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana

with

> > > the

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and

relevant

> > > > > information.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing -

our

> > > major

> > > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki

> > > Ramayana'

> > > > > (and

> > > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not forget

the

> > > main

> > > > > area

> > > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end of

our

> > > study,

> > > > > for

> > > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come

up. We

> > > > > will

> > > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further

> > > > > investigations

> > > > > > into other areas. :=)

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Finn

Wandahl "

> > > > > > <finn.wandahl@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions

regarding

> > > the

> > > > > origin

> > > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be

confusing,

> > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it

may

> > > better to

> > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions

regarding

> > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > possible

> > > > > it may

> > > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions

to

> > > similar

> > > > > > > descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the

birth

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > description

> > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana

with

> > > the

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and

relevant

> > > > > information.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Finn

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- In

, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit

that

> > > these

> > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

later day

> > > > > > > > > interpolations

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that

the

> > > whole

> > > > > ramayana

> > > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC and

2

> > > AD?

> > > > > With the

> > > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions,

> > > Ardhasastra

> > > > > (of

> > > > > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I believe

that

> > > it

> > > > > is clear

> > > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD

for

> > > sure -

> > > > > or better

> > > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself.

> > > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological reference

in

> > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the

line of

> > > all

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly

superstitions.

> > > Actually

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT AT

ALL

> > > > > written by

> > > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid brahmins

of

> > > sunga

> > > > > period.

> > > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such a

text?!!

> > > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact

that -

> > > The

> > > > > whole

> > > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text created

with a

> > > > > purpose -

> > > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD.

Even the

> > > > > > > > astronomical references in it is going in the same

> > > direction.

> > > > > If there

> > > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently

available

> > > one (as

> > > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata), then that text is buried

in

> > > dept

> > > > > by the

> > > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a purpose

and

> > > wanted

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by

calling

> > > Buddha

> > > > > a thief

> > > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make of

that

> > > era

> > > > > (BC 200

> > > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary

works as

> > > > > well.

> > > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how

about

> > > going

> > > > > against

> > > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures who

in a

> > > > > futile

> > > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin

projecting,

> > > Yaga

> > > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient scripts

and

> > > even

> > > > > tried to

> > > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic

astrological

> > > signs

> > > > > also into

> > > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't it

that

> > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same?

> > > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically

acceptable

> > > path,

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > enough evidence in support.

> > > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all

> > > authentic.

> > > > > Giving it

> > > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is

ignorance.

> > > Rama

> > > > > is god

> > > > > > > > or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of a

made

> > > up

> > > > > text like

> > > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written by

> > > Valmiki

> > > > > for sure

> > > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of partiality

and

> > > hatred

> > > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was a

great

> > > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta,

and

> > > > > ascribing the

> > > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available

Ramayana on

> > > him

> > > > > is a

> > > > > > > > SIN, and an insult of that great sage.

> > > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- In

, " Avtar

> > > > > Krishen Kaul "

> > > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following

argument and

> > > > > > > > > possibilities ->

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to ponder

on the

> > > > > following

> > > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi

Mahakavya

> > > > > i.e. the

> > > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history and

> > > Maharshi

> > > > > Valamiki

> > > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated much

> > > earlier

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed

much

> > > earlier

> > > > > than

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:

> > > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or Mangal

Shani

> > > etc.

> > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > in the VJ

> > > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the

> > > Mahabharata

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any

Mangal

> > > Shani

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas prior

to the

> > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of

Bhagwan

> > > Rama,

> > > > > > Bharata,

> > > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki

Ramayana?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of all

the

> > > > > astronomers

> > > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the

irreconcilable

> > > facts

> > > > > that if

> > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon in

> > > Karakta in

> > > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been

Navmki

> > > tithi

> > > > > or vice-

> > > > > > > > > versa?

> > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether

the so

> > > called

> > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

i.e.

> > > the

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> > > Bhagwan

> > > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never

have been

> > > in

> > > > > Karkata

> > > > > > > > > if the sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even

Mina!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile these

> > > > > irreconcilable

> > > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing stock

of

> > > > > ourselves!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit

that

> > > these

> > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

later day

> > > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing

overzealous

> > > > > astrologers who

> > > > > > > > > did not know even this much of astronomy that if

the sun

> > > of

> > > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could never

have

> > > been

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His

siblings!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT THAT

WE DO

> > > NOT

> > > > > HAVE A

> > > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS

> > > INCREASED

> > > > > SINCE IT

> > > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA

KARTUM

> > > > > SAMARTH AND

> > > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is that

it

> > > means

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa etc.

did not

> > > > > > believe in

> > > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.

> > > > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Finn ji,

The mail is addressed to him or not, he has already addressed the

mail, and my reply will follow.

Love and Hugs,

Sreenadh

 

, " Finn Wandahl "

<finn.wandahl wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I think perhaps this message should have been addressed to Mr. Kaul,

> not to me.

>

> Finn

>

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Finn ji,

> > The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means

> > join/conjunct/mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means " the one that

> > joins/conjuncts/mixes/combines " . There are many words that sprung from

> > this root. Look at the following word -

> > " Lagna MandalaH " - it means the same as " Rasi Chakra " and means

> > 'Zodiac'.

> > Mandala = Chakra = Circle

> > Lagna = Rasi = Sign

> > Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also means 'Sign

> > Circle' or in other words both are other names for the Ecliptic, the

> > zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any standard

> > Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna' can

> > means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the

> > following Nirukti -

> > 'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which

> > join/conjunct/mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna'; certainly the

> > word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets joins

> > (traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every sign

> > means 'Lagna'.

> > Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'

> > meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/mix/combine (or in other words

> > shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna' can

> > refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'.

> > Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition such as

> > 'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called Lagna'.

> > Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated with the

> > word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the word 'rising'

> > that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the horizon,

> > the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here too

> > and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant'

acceptable.

> > Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as done

> > in Prasnamarga), the word 'Lagna' loses all its association with

> > 'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!

> > Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora Lagna',

> > 'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which are NOT

> > AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore in such

> > contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes erroneous.

> > Considering all these points it becomes clear that accepting the

> > meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana' context is a

> > truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and Dictionaries.

> > Hope this helps.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the meaning

'Sign' to

> > > the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next post. Now

> > > coming to your next argument -

> > > ==>

> > > > However, even if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna

means

> > > > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very

> > > > clearly been stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun

was

> > > > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of

> > > > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and

> > > > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.

> > > <==

> > > It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I will

> > > re-state it here.

> > > " kuleere abyudite ravav " It could be a simple sandhi mistake of a

> > > missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be " kuleere

> > > abyuditaraavav " , meaning " Mars (aara) was in Capricorn (Kuleera) " .

> > > Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is given in Sanskrit

> > > Nikhandus as " Kuleero Nakra Karkatau " meaning " The word Kuleera is

> > > used for Capricon and Cancer " . The auther of Hridyapadha vyakhya of

> > > Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various

Nikhandus and

> > > argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is also very

> > > popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows that

apart

> > > from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the

position

> > > of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from the

> > > description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and

Mercury

> > > are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the

Nakshatra

> > > of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it becomes

> > > clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days, and also

> > > that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only the

> > > planetary position.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > , " Avtar Krishen

Kaul "

> > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > Namaskar!

> > > > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree that the

> > > > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are concoctions

> > > > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a period of

> > > > second century BCE.

> > > > However, you have also said

> > > >

> > > > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

given is

> > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at that

> > > > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

> > > > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries

and

> > > > Nirukti of the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the

> > > > word Lagna) ->

> > > >

> > > > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr

useless or

> > > > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware of the

> > > > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of

birth/event.

> > > > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya

> Sidhanta

> > > > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work. The

> > > > complete sholka is " Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne

> > > > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite ravav " --

> > > > 1/18/15

> > > >

> > > > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However,

even

> > > > if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign,

how do

> > > > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly been

> > > > stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was in Kuleera

> > > > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan

> Rama in

> > > > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana could

> not

> > > > be in Karkata in any case.

> > > > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was born in

> > > > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and (iii-iv)

> > > > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in " Sarpi " i.e. Ashlesha. They are in a

> > > > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in

> Karkata,

> > > > who are younger by just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and Bharata

> > > > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!

> > > >

> > > > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been a

> > > > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.

> > > > With regards,

> > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

> either

> > > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is re-

> > > > written

> > > > > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is the

correct

> > > > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently available

> > > > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly the

> work

> > > > of

> > > > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a

planetary

> > > > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!!

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any

> > > > obscurity, we

> > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation came

> into

> > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-Avtar

> and

> > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said that -

> it is

> > > > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in the

recent

> > > > > past. He just took some samples from the recent history

> known to

> > > > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that

fulfills his

> > > > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic poet' who

> > > > knew

> > > > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who

mistook to

> > > > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men with a

tail

> > > > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in Ramayana

> > > > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we

had at

> > > > that

> > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

was the

> > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who wrote

> > > > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts - not

that

> > > > he is

> > > > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary

position

> > > > of

> > > > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and

mentions

> > > > that

> > > > > it was Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami. No

great

> > > > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much, and

> > > > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of the

> > > > people in

> > > > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary position

> > > > using

> > > > > that.

> > > > > If you are bewildered by the statement that " ALL THE

PLANETS ARE

> > > > > MENTIONED " , then here goes the clarification:

> > > > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated

> > > > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.

> > > > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not clear.

> > > > > Then comes the interesting part -

> > > > > 4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

given

> > > > is

> > > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at

that

> > > > time

> > > > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

> Sign -

> > > > as

> > > > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

> Nirukti of

> > > > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the word

> > > > Lagna) -

> > > > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!

> > > > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and Satrukhna

> it is

> > > > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that " Kuleere

> > > > > Abhuditeaaravo " means " Arra (Mars) was in Capricon

(Kuleera) " !!

> > > > Which

> > > > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion about 'Sun in

> > > > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the

> position

> > > > of

> > > > > Mars is clearly stated!

> > > > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which

as per

> > > > the

> > > > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes clarified. Sa

> is in

> > > > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus!

> > > > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the

> confusion

> > > > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused by our

> > > > > ignorance and lack of effort to understand the facts!

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Avtar Krishen

> > > > Kaul "

> > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

(Gregorian

> > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what I

> > > > mean. The

> > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of

yourself by

> > > > such

> > > > > > comments!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary position of

> > > > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the

> planetary

> > > > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to two

> > > > > > conclusions:

> > > > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March 14,

157

> > > > BC at

> > > > > > 9-15 PM

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

> either

> > > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any

> > > > obscurity, we

> > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation came

> into

> > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-Avtar

> and

> > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological knowledge and

> > > > latest

> > > > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish

jyotishi

> > > > has

> > > > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC into the

> > > > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine incarnation

> > > > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we

had at

> > > > that

> > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

was the

> > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless

astronomical

> > > > work

> > > > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so much so

> > > > that

> > > > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!

> > > > > > QED/QEF

> > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > AKK

> > > > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

> (Gregorian

> > > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what I

> > > > mean.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.

> > > > > > > Let us look at the core argument of Kaul ji -

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > > > called

> > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

i.e. the

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of Bhagwan

> > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki

Ramayana

> > > > which

> > > > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa'; I hope

> > > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same text. ;=)

> > > > Actually

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the birth

> > > > took

> > > > > > place

> > > > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu.

> > > > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the word

> 'Lagna'

> > > > is a

> > > > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta

> defenition

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc, even

> > > > though

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > second meaning became popular later.

> > > > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this text - was

> > > > > > describing

> > > > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to him -

> > > > possibly

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period, and

> that is

> > > > why

> > > > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine one.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it may

> > > > better to

> > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

> subject.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > I agree - but is it not that these discussions itself is

> > > > part of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > investigations into the subject?

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions regarding

> > > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > > possible

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these

horoscope-descriptions

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -

> > > > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas & Tantric texts

> > > > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature, Epics,

> > > > Puranas

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data around,

> and

> > > > we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions agree

> > > > with

> > > > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the

birth

> > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > > description

> > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana

with

> > > > the

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and relevant

> > > > > > information.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing - our

> > > > major

> > > > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki

> > > > Ramayana'

> > > > > > (and

> > > > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not forget

the

> > > > main

> > > > > > area

> > > > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end of our

> > > > study,

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come up.

> We

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further

> > > > > > investigations

> > > > > > > into other areas. :=)

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Finn

> Wandahl "

> > > > > > > <finn.wandahl@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions

regarding

> > > > the

> > > > > > origin

> > > > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be

confusing,

> > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it may

> > > > better to

> > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

> subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions regarding

> > > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > > possible

> > > > > > it may

> > > > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions to

> > > > similar

> > > > > > > > descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the

birth

> > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > > description

> > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana

with

> > > > the

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and relevant

> > > > > > information.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Finn

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ,

" Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit

that

> > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

later day

> > > > > > > > > > interpolations

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that the

> > > > whole

> > > > > > ramayana

> > > > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC and 2

> > > > AD?

> > > > > > With the

> > > > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions,

> > > > Ardhasastra

> > > > > > (of

> > > > > > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I believe

that

> > > > it

> > > > > > is clear

> > > > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD for

> > > > sure -

> > > > > > or better

> > > > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself.

> > > > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological reference in

> > > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the

line of

> > > > all

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly superstitions.

> > > > Actually

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT AT

ALL

> > > > > > written by

> > > > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid brahmins of

> > > > sunga

> > > > > > period.

> > > > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such a

text?!!

> > > > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact

that -

> > > > The

> > > > > > whole

> > > > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text created

with a

> > > > > > purpose -

> > > > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD.

> Even the

> > > > > > > > > astronomical references in it is going in the same

> > > > direction.

> > > > > > If there

> > > > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently available

> > > > one (as

> > > > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata), then that text is buried in

> > > > dept

> > > > > > by the

> > > > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a purpose and

> > > > wanted

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by calling

> > > > Buddha

> > > > > > a thief

> > > > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make of

that

> > > > era

> > > > > > (BC 200

> > > > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary

works as

> > > > > > well.

> > > > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how about

> > > > going

> > > > > > against

> > > > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures who

in a

> > > > > > futile

> > > > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin

projecting,

> > > > Yaga

> > > > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient scripts

and

> > > > even

> > > > > > tried to

> > > > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic astrological

> > > > signs

> > > > > > also into

> > > > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't it

that

> > > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same?

> > > > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically acceptable

> > > > path,

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > enough evidence in support.

> > > > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all

> > > > authentic.

> > > > > > Giving it

> > > > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is

ignorance.

> > > > Rama

> > > > > > is god

> > > > > > > > > or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of a

made

> > > > up

> > > > > > text like

> > > > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written by

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > for sure

> > > > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of partiality and

> > > > hatred

> > > > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was a

great

> > > > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta, and

> > > > > > ascribing the

> > > > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available

Ramayana on

> > > > him

> > > > > > is a

> > > > > > > > > SIN, and an insult of that great sage.

> > > > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , " Avtar

> > > > > > Krishen Kaul "

> > > > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following

argument and

> > > > > > > > > > possibilities ->

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to ponder on

> the

> > > > > > following

> > > > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi

> Mahakavya

> > > > > > i.e. the

> > > > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history and

> > > > Maharshi

> > > > > > Valamiki

> > > > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated much

> > > > earlier

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed much

> > > > earlier

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:

> > > > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or Mangal

Shani

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > in the VJ

> > > > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the

> > > > Mahabharata

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any Mangal

> > > > Shani

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas prior

to the

> > > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of Bhagwan

> > > > Rama,

> > > > > > > Bharata,

> > > > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki Ramayana?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of all the

> > > > > > astronomers

> > > > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the irreconcilable

> > > > facts

> > > > > > that if

> > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon in

> > > > Karakta in

> > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been Navmki

> > > > tithi

> > > > > > or vice-

> > > > > > > > > > versa?

> > > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether

the so

> > > > called

> > > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

i.e.

> > > > the

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never have

> been

> > > > in

> > > > > > Karkata

> > > > > > > > > > if the sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even Mina!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile these

> > > > > > irreconcilable

> > > > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing stock of

> > > > > > ourselves!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit

that

> > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are later

> day

> > > > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing overzealous

> > > > > > astrologers who

> > > > > > > > > > did not know even this much of astronomy that if the

> sun

> > > > of

> > > > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could never

have

> > > > been

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His

> siblings!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT THAT

WE DO

> > > > NOT

> > > > > > HAVE A

> > > > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS

> > > > INCREASED

> > > > > > SINCE IT

> > > > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA

KARTUM

> > > > > > SAMARTH AND

> > > > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is that it

> > > > means

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa etc.

> did not

> > > > > > > believe in

> > > > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.

> > > > > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji, Kishor ji, Finn ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > I request you to look in to the following

argument

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > possibilities -

> > > > > > > > > > > * The Yaga started at the beginning of Vasanta

> > > > Ritu.

> > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > > > possibly

> > > > > > > > > > > ended near the end of Vasanta Ritu. In the 12th

> > > > Nakshatra

> > > > > > month

> > > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > the end date of Yaga reached (i.e. when 280+ days,

> the

> > > > > > normal

> > > > > > > > > > period

> > > > > > > > > > > of pregnancy is completed), and when the year was

> > > > going to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > completed, Rama and brothers where born.

> > > > > > > > > > > * From the mention of Navami Tithi and Punarvasu

> > > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > clear that Moon was some where near 27 degrees in

> > > > Pisces.

> > > > > > > > > > > * It is at the Vishu date (i.e. when Sun is in

> the

> > > > > > vernal

> > > > > > > > > > equinox)

> > > > > > > > > > > that Vasanta Ritu bigins.

> > > > > > > > > > > * Considering the above 3 points it is clear

that

> > > > VERNAL

> > > > > > > EQUINOX

> > > > > > > > > > > WAS SOMEWHERE AFTER (NEAR) 27 DEGREE PISCES at the

> > > > time of

> > > > > > > birth of

> > > > > > > > > > > Rama! Can we have a bit more clarify on this?

Let us

> > > > > > consider the

> > > > > > > > > > > following point -

> > > > > > > > > > > * Possibly, from the beginning of Vasnata

Ritu, it

> > > > is

> > > > > > after, 60

> > > > > > > > > > > days (Vasata Ritu) + 280 days = 340 days, that Rama

> > > > was

> > > > > > born.

> > > > > > > > > > > Completion of the year could take approximately

> > > > 365.2425 -

> > > > > > 340 =

> > > > > > > > > > > 25.2425 days more. Means the Ayanamsa (if at all

> used)

> > > > was

> > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > tally

> > > > > > > > > > > with this. In any case it is clear that " at the

time

> > > > of

> > > > > > Rama's

> > > > > > > > > > birth

> > > > > > > > > > > Sun was between solstice and vernal equinox " !

> (Because

> > > > the

> > > > > > next

> > > > > > > > > > > Vasnata Ritu was yet to bigin)

> > > > > > > > > > > So what is the important derivation and

> conclusion?

> > > > > > Here it

> > > > > > > is -

> > > > > > > > > > > * If this is the case, certainly either -

> > > > > > > > > > > 1)it is the description of a recent planetary

> > > > > > position

> > > > > > > > > > (possibly

> > > > > > > > > > > between 250 BC and 250 AD) OR

> > > > > > > > > > > 2)the description of a planetary position at

> > > > least

> > > > > > 26000

> > > > > > > > > > years

> > > > > > > > > > > before!

> > > > > > > > > > > Because the same position of equinox can repeat

> > > > only

> > > > > > after

> > > > > > > > > > 26000

> > > > > > > > > > > years aprox.

> > > > > > > > > > > I discard the 2nd choice simply as absurd and

> > > > > > impossible -

> > > > > > > > > > > considering out understanding of the archeological

> and

> > > > > > linguistic

> > > > > > > > > > > history of ancient india.

> > > > > > > > > > > So the revelation is that - the planetary

position

> > > > given

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > > > > > > is the description of a RECENT planetary position -

> > > > > > possibly

> > > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > 250 BC and 250 AD!! (It is the possible period of

> > > > origin

> > > > > > > indicated

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > various references present in Valmiki Ramayana

> > > > itself). Is

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > year during this period which satisfies the

> > > > conditions -

> > > > > > provided

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > the text? The points that should become true are -

> > > > > > > > > > > * 5 planets should be either in own sign or

> > > > exaltation.

> > > > > > > > > > > * Jupitor and Moon should be in Cancer

> > > > > > > > > > > * It should be Navami Tithi and Punarvasu

Nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > > > The extra points that could be considered are -

> > > > > > > > > > > * The word 'Lagna' could means 'Sign' as well.

> > > > > > Therefore it is

> > > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > necessary that Rama's Asc should be Cancer. (But

> if it

> > > > is

> > > > > > so, in

> > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > the slokas present in Valmiki Ramayana the

> > > > word 'Lagna'

> > > > > > should

> > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > 'Sign' itself)

> > > > > > > > > > > * The word 'Prasanna dhee' used in Bharata's

chart

> > > > > > could mean

> > > > > > > > > > > Mercury.

> > > > > > > > > > > * Since Valmiki Ramayana follows the Vedic

> path, as

> > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > naturally expected, it could be a Tropical

horoscope

> > > > > > instead of a

> > > > > > > > > > > Nirayana horoscope.

> > > > > > > > > > > Is there a possible year in between BC 250

and AD

> > > > 250

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > satisfies these conditions? Could it be: -157 or I

> > > > request

> > > > > > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > > > > > > and others to verify the following planetary

position

> > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > possible

> > > > > > > > > > > date, using Tropical Zodiac-

> > > > > > > > > > > * Ju and Moon in Cancer

> > > > > > > > > > > * Sun and Me in Pisces

> > > > > > > > > > > * Sa in Aquarious

> > > > > > > > > > > * Ma in Capricon

> > > > > > > > > > > * Ve in Tarus

> > > > > > > > > > > * Ra & Ke in Ge-Sg axis

> > > > > > > > > > > * Asc Scorpio!

> > > > > > > > > > > * Suklapaksha Navami Tithi and Punarvasu

Nakshatra

> > > > > > > > > > > Note that all the conditions given in the text

> > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > > true,

> > > > > > > > > > > it the following planetary position is possible.

For

> > > > > > example -

> > > > > > > > > > > * Ma, Sa, Ve are in own sign & Ju, Ma are in

> > > > exaltation -

> > > > > > > making

> > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > planets in own sign or exaltation.

> > > > > > > > > > > * The tithi is Suklapaksha Navami and Nakshatra

> > > > > > Punarvasu.

> > > > > > > > > > > All the statements given in the text Ramayana

could

> > > > be

> > > > > > > right, it

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > above planetary position is possible (please

confirm

> > > > it -

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > is possible or not, by checking yourself). But

> then it

> > > > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > > clear

> > > > > > > > > > > that the word 'Lagna' is used in Ramayana with the

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > > 'Sign',

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > the word 'Prasanna dhee' to denote 'Mercury'.

> > > > > > > > > > > I might have committed several mistakes in the

> above

> > > > > > > > > > derivations, so

> > > > > > > > > > > before confirming it, I am waiting for the response

> > > > from

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > > > scholars.

> > > > > > > > > > > Note: Possibly I haven't yet done my homework

> right,

> > > > so

> > > > > > pardon

> > > > > > > > > > me if

> > > > > > > > > > > I have committed mistakes in the above

> > > > argumentation.

> > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kishore ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to astrology, I always wondered

> why

> > > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > > made

> > > > > > > > > > > > so much out of the planetary positions of Rama

when

> > > > all

> > > > > > the four

> > > > > > > > > > > > brothers have shared the same D1, with Bharata's

> > > > lagna

> > > > > > being 9

> > > > > > > > > > houses

> > > > > > > > > > > > away from others, a watery and shubha sthana

> > > > > > nevertheless. More

> > > > > > > > > > > > poignantly, shatrughan has shared the same D1

yet,

> > > > he

> > > > > > enjoyed a

> > > > > > > > > > normal

> > > > > > > > > > > > and smooth life, with some victories (such as

over

> > > > > > Ilasura) in

> > > > > > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > > > > credit, as against the turbulent life that

Rama has

> > > > > > suffered.

> > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Valmiki Ramayana clearly indicates

> > > > that in

> > > > > > Rama's

> > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sun is in Pisces, and it clearly states that when

> > > > > > Lakshmana and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Satrukhna were born Sun was in Cancer. Thus the

> > > > Natal

> > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > (calling

> > > > > > > > > > > > it D1 is wrong - because D1 means Sign and NOT

> natal

> > > > > > chart) of

> > > > > > > > > > them

> > > > > > > > > > > > are NOT same, as you refer to. Further the Lagna

> > > > also

> > > > > > differs.

> > > > > > > > > > For

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rama the Lagna is Cancer, for Bharata it is

Pisces,

> > > > and

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > Lekshmana

> > > > > > > > > > > > and Satrukhna we don't know clearly what it

was. If

> > > > > > statements

> > > > > > > > > > > > available in, currently available Valmiki

Ramayana

> > > > is

> > > > > > true -

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lakshmana and Satrukhana were born 4+ months

after

> > > > the

> > > > > > birth of

> > > > > > > > > > Rama

> > > > > > > > > > > > and so the planetary positions of their chart

> should

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > differ. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > you are of the opinion that the statement

" When the

> > > > > > children of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sumitra (Lakshmana and Satrukhna) were born

Sun was

> > > > in

> > > > > > Cancer "

> > > > > > > > > > present

> > > > > > > > > > > > in current Valmiki Ramaya is wrong - then it is a

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > thing. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > that your argument?

> > > > > > > > > > > > So in essence the natal chart itself of Rama

and

> > > > > > brothers

> > > > > > > > > > differ,

> > > > > > > > > > > > and naturally different results follow.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the secret lies in the Divisional

charts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > You can think anything - but for sure valimiki

> was

> > > > > > unaware of

> > > > > > > > > > > > 'Divisional charts' even though a possibility

> > > > > > for 'Divisions'

> > > > > > > > > > (which

> > > > > > > > > > > > alone is supported by ancient astrological

> classics)

> > > > > > exist. But

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > too certainly there is not even a single

statement

> > > > in

> > > > > > Ramayana

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > shows that he (the author of that book) was even

> > > > aware

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > divisions.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As Visti has pointed out that it is quite

> possible

> > > > > > that moon

> > > > > > > > > > is at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the very end of 4th pada of the asterism and

this

> > > > will

> > > > > > make

> > > > > > > > > > the Sun

> > > > > > > > > > > > > being in the last pada of Pisces(possibly) This

> > > > will

> > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > sun

> > > > > > > > > > > > > also vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, sun must be betwen 27-30 degrees of the

> > > > pisces,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > will take

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the lagna to complete the same in 12

minutes. The

> > > > > > remaining

> > > > > > > > > > lagnas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of Aries, Tarurus and Gemini can be complete

in

> > > > > > almost 6

> > > > > > > > > > hours -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not withstanding the 12 minutes above- making

> the

> > > > > > abhihjt

> > > > > > > > > > lagna a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > possibility. In such an event, the lagna also

> > > > falls in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > > > pada of Cancer, which will make lagna also

> > > > vargottama.

> > > > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > > > First of all Visti is not part of this group

and

> > > > > > didn't say

> > > > > > > > > > anything

> > > > > > > > > > > > here (are you posting the same message in

multiple

> > > > > > groups?! -

> > > > > > > > > > ok. you

> > > > > > > > > > > > might be referring to someone in some other

group).

> > > > Now

> > > > > > coming

> > > > > > > > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > > > arguments about Abhijit etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > * For Navami to happen the distance between

Sun

> > > > and

> > > > > > Moon

> > > > > > > > > > should be

> > > > > > > > > > > > more than 96 degrees. That means even if Moon

is at

> > > > the

> > > > > > end of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu Nakshatra (i.e. 93 degree 20 min), the

> Sun

> > > > > > should be

> > > > > > > > > > beyond

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2 degree 40 min from end point of Pisces. That

> means

> > > > Sun

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > have a

> > > > > > > > > > > > longitude more than 27 degree 20 min in Pises.

> [i.e.

> > > > Sun

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > take 10

> > > > > > > > > > > > min at least to cover Pisces]. Now Moon being in

> > > > Rasi

> > > > > > Sandhi,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nakshatra Sandhi and Tithi sandhi, (all

showing bad

> > > > > > results) I

> > > > > > > > > > don't

> > > > > > > > > > > > think we should expect that in the chart of an

> > > > avatar.

> > > > > > What

> > > > > > > ever

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > be note the points

> > > > > > > > > > > > - Sun needs at least 10+ min to cover

> > > > Pisces.

> > > > > > > > > > > > - The Sun's longitude cannot be more

than

> > > > 27

> > > > > > degree 20

> > > > > > > > > > min.

> > > > > > > > > > > > * As you rightly pointed out Sun needs 6 hours

> > > > approx

> > > > > > to cover

> > > > > > > > > > Aries,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tarus & Gemini. And thus there is a possibility

> that

> > > > the

> > > > > > birth

> > > > > > > > > > took

> > > > > > > > > > > > place at Noon - possibly in Abhijit Muhurta -

> > > > Provided

> > > > > > the day

> > > > > > > > > > was a

> > > > > > > > > > > > near equinox day (i.e. when day and night are

> almost

> > > > > > equal).

> > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > comes

> > > > > > > > > > > > the interesting part - the birth was in

> Uttarayana -

> > > > so

> > > > > > were do

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think the equinox and solstice would be?

Before the

> > > > 27

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > position

> > > > > > > > > > > > of Sun - right - what era could it be - and where

> > > > was he

> > > > > > > equinox

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > solstice then - as Kaul ji rightly puts it. So

the

> > > > point

> > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > noted

> > > > > > > > > > > > is that

> > > > > > > > > > > > - essentially the Abhijit Muhurta

argument

> > > > > > brings in to

> > > > > > > > > > focus

> > > > > > > > > > > > the position of Solstice in to consideration.

> > > > > > > > > > > > What are your opinions on the same? Can it

> be BC

> > > > > > 50000+ and

> > > > > > > > > > still

> > > > > > > > > > > > your Abhijit argument true? What do you think?

> > > > > > > > > > > > * Another important question is - if Ra or

Ke is

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > exaltation -

> > > > > > > > > > > > which of them is in exaltation. I mean is it that

> > > > when

> > > > > > Ra is

> > > > > > > > > > exalted

> > > > > > > > > > > > then Ke also exalted, increasing the count of

> > > > exaltation

> > > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > SIX? Is it that Valmiki missed it? If not what is

> > > > the

> > > > > > solution

> > > > > > > > > > to this

> > > > > > > > > > > > 6 planet problem? If you go by the argument both

> Own

> > > > > > house

> > > > > > > (Swa)

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Exaltation (Uccha) are considered, then what is

> your

> > > > > > arguments

> > > > > > > > > > FORM

> > > > > > > > > > > > VALMIKI RAMAYANA in support of placing Ma, Ve,

> Sa in

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > particular

> > > > > > > > > > > > signs? Yes, I could see that even though you

> > > > presented

> > > > > > such an

> > > > > > > > > > > > argument - but never followed it, by providing

the

> > > > > > supplementary

> > > > > > > > > > > > evidence. What do you think about this?

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are other doubts too - but I think

this is

> > > > enough

> > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > current mail.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > > > , " kishore

> > > > > > > > > > patnaik "

> > > > > > > > > > > > <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a matter of our merits that have been

> > > > > > accumulated

> > > > > > > > > > during our

> > > > > > > > > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > > > > > > > births that we are spending this Diwali in the

> > > > chant

> > > > > > of Rama,

> > > > > > > > > > rather

> > > > > > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wasting our time otherwise. I wish everyone on

> the

> > > > > > group a

> > > > > > > > > > merry and

> > > > > > > > > > > > a holy

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Diwali.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Srimad Ramayana is a depository of several

yogic

> > > > and

> > > > > > cosmic

> > > > > > > > > > secrets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > For

> > > > > > > > > > > > > eg., Sree Sundara Kanda is directly

> interpreted as

> > > > the

> > > > > > search

> > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > yogi for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Kundalini downtrodden from Sahasrara to

> > > > Muladhara.

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > fact, when

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > raised the question, I have expected the

Likes of

> > > > PVR

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > search for an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > answer in that angle too,.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to astrology, I always

wondered

> > > > why

> > > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > > > made so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > much out of the planetary positions of Rama

when

> > > > all

> > > > > > the four

> > > > > > > > > > > > brothers have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shared the same D1, with Bharata's lagna

being 9

> > > > > > houses away

> > > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > others, a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > watery and shubha sthana nevertheless. More

> > > > > > poignantly,

> > > > > > > > > > > shatrughan has

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shared the same D1 yet, he enjoyed a normal and

> > > > smooth

> > > > > > life,

> > > > > > > > > > with some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > victories (such as over Ilasura) in his

> credit, as

> > > > > > against the

> > > > > > > > > > > turbulent

> > > > > > > > > > > > > life that Rama has suffered.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the secret lies in the Divisional

charts.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is needless to point out that Moon of Sri

> Rama

> > > > > > enjoys a

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargottama. As

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Visti has pointed out that it is quite possible

> > > > that

> > > > > > moon is

> > > > > > > > > > at the

> > > > > > > > > > > > very end

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of 4th pada of the asterism and this will make

> the

> > > > Sun

> > > > > > > being in

> > > > > > > > > > > the last

> > > > > > > > > > > > > pada of Pisces(possibly) This will make the sun

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > vargottama.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, sun must be betwen 27-30 degrees of the

> > > > pisces,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > take the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna to complete the same in 12 minutes. The

> > > > remaining

> > > > > > > lagnas

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Aries,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tarurus and Gemini can be complete in almost 6

> > > > hours -

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > withstanding the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 12 minutes above- making the abhihjt lagna a

> > > > > > possibility. In

> > > > > > > > > > such

> > > > > > > > > > > > an event

> > > > > > > > > > > > > , the lagna also falls in the first pada of

> > > > Cancer,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > make

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > also vargottama.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I leave to the Group to discuss further

if I

> > > > am

> > > > > > missing

> > > > > > > > > > > something.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > regards,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kishore patnaik

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 98492 70729

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kaul ji,

Let us consider your major arguments -

==>

> to interpret Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched, to

> say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as

> Karkata!

<==

That is simply your ignorance - many major dictionaries and

Nikhandus deals with in detail - and clarifies it well that the word

'Kuleera' could mean 'Capricorn'. To convince you, I will provide a

details quotes and references from them in the next post.

==>

> If you are using " Lagna " for signs, then you cannot help placing

> five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what

> the ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, " nakshatre aditi daivatye

> svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna

> saha "

<==

This too is simply ignorance. The sloka bit means " (Rama took birth)

in Punarvasu Nakshatra, while 5 planets where in own house or

exaltation, when Jupiter was with Moon in Cancer sign " . Two things

should be noted here -

1) To denote Cancer sign the word Karkata is used (and NOT Kuleera)

2) There too the word " Lagna " means " Sign " itself. Note that

" karkate lagne vakpatav induna saha " means " In Cancer SIGN Jupitor was

with Moon "

==>

> Secondly, we cannot overlook the fact that " Adyatma Ramayana " , which

> you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas

<==

There is more than one ignorance in your statements. Let see what

they are -

1) Adhyatma Ramayana is NOT a text written in Kerala. It is - " an

ancient Sanskrit work extolling the spiritual virtues of the story of

Ramayana. It comprises around 4200 verses, is embedded in Brahm & #257;nda

Purana and is considered to be authored by Ved Vyasa " - wikipedia.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhyatma_Ramayana)

2) What is popular in Kerala is an INDIPENDED TRANSILATION of

Adyatma Ramayana written by Tunjattu Ramanujan Ezhuttacchan who is

known as the 'father of malayalam language' a great scholar.

3) We are NOT discussing Adhyatma Ramayana but VALMIKI RAMAYANA - so

don't bring in irrelevant quotes in between. Note that while Valmiki

Ramayana does not mention Madhu masa etc Adhayata Ramayana does it.

Note that while Valmiki Ramayana tells us that the birth took place in

the 12th (Nakshatra) Month from the end date of Putra kameshti,

Adhyatma Ramayana tells us that it happened at the 10th month. So with

this much inconsistencies between these two texts - Adhyatma Ramayana

quote is NOT worth considering while discussing " Astrology in Valmiki

Ramayana " . It is clear that you are bringing in the Adhyatma ramayana

quote only because it mentions your pet " Madhu Masa " in it - but that

is irrelevant to the current context. Please try to depend ONLY ON

references from Valmiki Ramayana alone while discussing the same.

4) I am not interested in your habit and inconsistent nature in

studying subject and introducing diversions. So I don't have any time

to waste after the quote and inconsistencies you presented regarding

the Adhyatma Ramayana quote. Again it simply means that I have wasted

enough time on the ignorance of " Tropical Calendarvalas " .

Note: So learn to be sincere and be truthful - and if clarity comes

in from some where learn to welcome it – and if possible drop the

fanatism and use of bad words. You are dragging me to the same

direction – `I know only to deal with bad with bad and good with good'

– so the end result would be the group becoming a mud house and I

don't want it. So please avoid name calling here onwards and me too

will never resort to it. Let us keep the group clean and sane. People

has already started complaining about the insane useless direction in

which this group is going - both you and me are culprits for the same.

Please know it as a fact.

Regards,

Sreenadh

 

, " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

>

> Shri Sreenadh ji,

> Namaskar!

> You are talking of an event of second century BCE. The Surya

> Sidhanta, which gives the mothodology of calculating " lagna " was

> very much in vogue then. When you are using the word Lagna in the

> context of planetary positions vis-a-vis some horoscope/birth chart,

> it is unimaginable that instead of the common interpretation of the

> word Lagna i.e. the sign rising at a particular time,

> the " astrologer " concerned would have resorted to some other meaning

> of that word! He could very well have used the word " rashi " instead

> of Lagna then.

> Secondly, to interpet Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched, to

> say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as

> Karkata!

> Then you are also ascribing a " misprint " or some problem

> with " Sandhi " for the word " abyudyete ravav " and interpreted it as

> the description of Mars in Capricorn! That also is far fetched!

>

> If you are using " Lagna " for signs, then you cannot help placing

> five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what the

> ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, " nakshatre aditi daivatye

> svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna

> saha " Here you can club the words as " panchasu graheshu karkate

> lagne, vakpatav induna saha " and interpret them as " five planets

> were in Karkata rashi, which included the Moon and Jupiter " . You

> cannot interpret " lagna " as sign in one place and at the same time

> as lagna i.e. aschendant in another place in one and the same

> chapter.

>

> The maximum difficulty that arises out of this hypothesis is that in

> second century BCE, there was no methodology of calculating planets

> correctly, whether it was India or any other country! India, on the

> other hand, was saddled with the Surya Sidhanta, which is

> fundamentally the most incorrect work. So it is just a possibility

> that the astrologer concerned could have calculated the planetary

> positions as per the Surya Sidhanta and then implanted them in the

> Valmiki Ramayana! Those calculatons can give very surprising

> results!

>

> Secondly, we cannot overlok the fact that " Adyatma Ramayana " , which

> you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas

> " madhumasse site pakshe navmyam karkate shubhe

> punarvasu sahite uchasthe grahapanchake

> mesham pooshani samprapte pushpavrishti samakule aviraseej jagan

> nathah parmatma sanatanah " (1/3/14-15)

>

> A running translation of these shlokas is

> " In the month of Madhu, shukla paksha --bright half--in navmi tithi

> and punarvasu nakshara, when five planets were exalted, the sun was

> in Mesha, the Eternal Lord of the worlds, Parmatma, incarnated.... "

>

>

> 1. Here the sun has specifically been put in Mesha but at the same

> time it is Madhu masa -- which is an astronomical impossibility!

>

> 2. Five planets are exalted but there is no mention that any planet

> is in its own rashi.

>

> 3. Though there is no menion of Karkata lagna or the Moon in

> Karkata, but if the Sun is in Mesha and it is Navmi tithi, it means

> that even if the sun is in 1 degree of Mesha the Moon has to be at a

> distance of more than 96 degrees from the same. Thus the Moon will

> be in Karkata 7 degrees to Karkata 19 degrees. But then Punarvasu

> nakshatra ranges from Mithuna 20 degrees to Karkata 3-20. Thus it

> is again an astronomical impossibility.

>

> In short, whichever way you look at it, whether it is the Valmiki

> Ramayana or the Adyatma Ramayana, the astronomical Rashi position

> of the planets cannot be justifed at all!

> With regards,

> AKK

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Finn ji,

> > The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means

> > join/conjunct/mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means " the one

> that

> > joins/conjuncts/mixes/combines " . There are many words that sprung

> from

> > this root. Look at the following word -

> > " Lagna MandalaH " - it means the same as " Rasi Chakra " and means

> > 'Zodiac'.

> > Mandala = Chakra = Circle

> > Lagna = Rasi = Sign

> > Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also

> means 'Sign

> > Circle' or in other words both are other names for the Ecliptic,

> the

> > zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any

> standard

> > Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna' can

> > means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the

> > following Nirukti -

> > 'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which

> > join/conjunct/mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna'; certainly

> the

> > word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets

> joins

> > (traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every

> sign

> > means 'Lagna'.

> > Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'

> > meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/mix/combine (or in other words

> > shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna' can

> > refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'.

> > Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition

> such as

> > 'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called

> Lagna'.

> > Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated with

> the

> > word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the word 'rising'

> > that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the

> horizon,

> > the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here too

> > and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant'

> acceptable.

> > Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as

> done

> > in Prasnamarga), the word 'Lagna' loses all its association with

> > 'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!

> > Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora Lagna',

> > 'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which are

> NOT

> > AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore in

> such

> > contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes

> erroneous.

> > Considering all these points it becomes clear that accepting the

> > meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana' context

> is a

> > truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and

> Dictionaries.

> > Hope this helps.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the

> meaning 'Sign' to

> > > the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next post.

> Now

> > > coming to your next argument -

> > > ==>

> > > > However, even if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna

> means

> > > > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has

> very

> > > > clearly been stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun

> was

> > > > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of

> > > > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana

> and

> > > > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.

> > > <==

> > > It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I

> will

> > > re-state it here.

> > > " kuleere abyudite ravav " It could be a simple sandhi mistake

> of a

> > > missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be " kuleere

> > > abyuditaraavav " , meaning " Mars (aara) was in Capricorn

> (Kuleera) " .

> > > Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is given in Sanskrit

> > > Nikhandus as " Kuleero Nakra Karkatau " meaning " The word Kuleera

> is

> > > used for Capricon and Cancer " . The auther of Hridyapadha vyakhya

> of

> > > Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various

> Nikhandus and

> > > argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is also

> very

> > > popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows that

> apart

> > > from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the

> position

> > > of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from the

> > > description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and

> Mercury

> > > are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the

> Nakshatra

> > > of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it

> becomes

> > > clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days, and

> also

> > > that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only the

> > > planetary position.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > , " Avtar Krishen

> Kaul "

> > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > , " Sreenadh "

> > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > Namaskar!

> > > > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree that

> the

> > > > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are

> concoctions

> > > > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a period

> of

> > > > second century BCE.

> > > > However, you have also said

> > > >

> > > > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

> given is

> > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at

> that

> > > > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna

> means

> > > > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries

> and

> > > > Nirukti of the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of

> the

> > > > word Lagna) ->

> > > >

> > > > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr

> useless or

> > > > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware of

> the

> > > > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of

> birth/event.

> > > > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya

> Sidhanta

> > > > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work.

> The

> > > > complete sholka is " Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne

> > > > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite

> ravav " --

> > > > 1/18/15

> > > >

> > > > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However,

> even

> > > > if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign,

> how do

> > > > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly

> been

> > > > stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was in

> Kuleera

> > > > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan

> Rama in

> > > > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana

> could not

> > > > be in Karkata in any case.

> > > > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was born

> in

> > > > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and (iii-

> iv)

> > > > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in " Sarpi " i.e. Ashlesha. They are

> in a

> > > > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in

> Karkata,

> > > > who are younger by just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and

> Bharata

> > > > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!

> > > >

> > > > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been a

> > > > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.

> > > > With regards,

> > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

> either

> > > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is

> re-

> > > > written

> > > > > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is the

> correct

> > > > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently

> available

> > > > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly

> the work

> > > > of

> > > > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a

> planetary

> > > > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!!

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any

> > > > obscurity, we

> > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation

> came into

> > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-

> Avtar and

> > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said that -

> it is

> > > > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in the

> recent

> > > > > past. He just took some samples from the recent history

> known to

> > > > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that

> fulfills his

> > > > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic poet'

> who

> > > > knew

> > > > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who

> mistook to

> > > > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men with a

> tail

> > > > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in

> Ramayana

> > > > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we

> had at

> > > > that

> > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

> was the

> > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who

> wrote

> > > > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts - not

> that

> > > > he is

> > > > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary

> position

> > > > of

> > > > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and

> mentions

> > > > that

> > > > > it was Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami. No

> great

> > > > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much, and

> > > > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of the

> > > > people in

> > > > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary

> position

> > > > using

> > > > > that.

> > > > > If you are bewildered by the statement that " ALL THE

> PLANETS ARE

> > > > > MENTIONED " , then here goes the clarification:

> > > > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated

> > > > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.

> > > > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not

> clear.

> > > > > Then comes the interesting part -

> > > > > 4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

> given

> > > > is

> > > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at

> that

> > > > time

> > > > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna means

> Sign -

> > > > as

> > > > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

> Nirukti of

> > > > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the word

> > > > Lagna) -

> > > > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!

> > > > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and

> Satrukhna it is

> > > > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that " Kuleere

> > > > > Abhuditeaaravo " means " Arra (Mars) was in Capricon

> (Kuleera) " !!

> > > > Which

> > > > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion

> about 'Sun in

> > > > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the

> position

> > > > of

> > > > > Mars is clearly stated!

> > > > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which

> as per

> > > > the

> > > > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes clarified.

> Sa is in

> > > > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus!

> > > > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the

> confusion

> > > > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused by

> our

> > > > > ignorance and lack of effort to understand the facts!

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Avtar

> Krishen

> > > > Kaul "

> > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

> (Gregorian

> > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what

> I

> > > > mean. The

> > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of

> yourself by

> > > > such

> > > > > > comments!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary position

> of

> > > > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the

> planetary

> > > > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to

> two

> > > > > > conclusions:

> > > > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March 14,

> 157

> > > > BC at

> > > > > > 9-15 PM

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi " of

> either

> > > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any

> > > > obscurity, we

> > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation

> came into

> > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-

> Avtar and

> > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological knowledge

> and

> > > > latest

> > > > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish

> jyotishi

> > > > has

> > > > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC into

> the

> > > > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine incarnation

> > > > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all we

> had at

> > > > that

> > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

> was the

> > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha

> > > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless

> astronomical

> > > > work

> > > > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so much

> so

> > > > that

> > > > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!

> > > > > > QED/QEF

> > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > AKK

> > > > > > --- In

> , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

> (Gregorian

> > > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see

> what I

> > > > mean.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in

> Ramayana.

> > > > > > > Let us look at the core argument of Kaul ji -

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so

> > > > called

> > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

> i.e. the

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> Bhagwan

> > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki

> Ramayana

> > > > which

> > > > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa'; I

> hope

> > > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same text. ;=)

> > > > Actually

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the

> birth

> > > > took

> > > > > > place

> > > > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu.

> > > > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the

> word 'Lagna'

> > > > is a

> > > > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta

> defenition

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc,

> even

> > > > though

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > second meaning became popular later.

> > > > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this text -

> was

> > > > > > describing

> > > > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to him -

>

> > > > possibly

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period, and

> that is

> > > > why

> > > > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine one.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it

> may

> > > > better to

> > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

> subject.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > I agree - but is it not that these discussions itself

> is

> > > > part of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > investigations into the subject?

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions

> regarding

> > > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > > possible

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these horoscope-

> descriptions

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -

> > > > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas & Tantric texts

> > > > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature, Epics,

> > > > Puranas

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data

> around, and

> > > > we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions

> agree

> > > > with

> > > > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the

> birth

> > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > > description

> > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana

> with

> > > > the

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and

> relevant

> > > > > > information.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing -

> our

> > > > major

> > > > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki

> > > > Ramayana'

> > > > > > (and

> > > > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not forget

> the

> > > > main

> > > > > > area

> > > > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end of

> our

> > > > study,

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come

> up. We

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further

> > > > > > investigations

> > > > > > > into other areas. :=)

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Finn

> Wandahl "

> > > > > > > <finn.wandahl@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions

> regarding

> > > > the

> > > > > > origin

> > > > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be

> confusing,

> > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it

> may

> > > > better to

> > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the

> subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions

> regarding

> > > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If

> > > > possible

> > > > > > it may

> > > > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descriptions

> to

> > > > similar

> > > > > > > > descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the

> birth

> > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this

> > > > description

> > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana

> with

> > > > the

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there

> > > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and

> relevant

> > > > > > information.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Finn

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- In

> , " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit

> that

> > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

> later day

> > > > > > > > > > interpolations

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that

> the

> > > > whole

> > > > > > ramayana

> > > > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC and

> 2

> > > > AD?

> > > > > > With the

> > > > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions,

> > > > Ardhasastra

> > > > > > (of

> > > > > > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I believe

> that

> > > > it

> > > > > > is clear

> > > > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD

> for

> > > > sure -

> > > > > > or better

> > > > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself.

> > > > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological reference

> in

> > > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the

> line of

> > > > all

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly

> superstitions.

> > > > Actually

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT AT

> ALL

> > > > > > written by

> > > > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid brahmins

> of

> > > > sunga

> > > > > > period.

> > > > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such a

> text?!!

> > > > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact

> that -

> > > > The

> > > > > > whole

> > > > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text created

> with a

> > > > > > purpose -

> > > > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD.

> Even the

> > > > > > > > > astronomical references in it is going in the same

> > > > direction.

> > > > > > If there

> > > > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently

> available

> > > > one (as

> > > > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata), then that text is buried

> in

> > > > dept

> > > > > > by the

> > > > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a purpose

> and

> > > > wanted

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by

> calling

> > > > Buddha

> > > > > > a thief

> > > > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make of

> that

> > > > era

> > > > > > (BC 200

> > > > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary

> works as

> > > > > > well.

> > > > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how

> about

> > > > going

> > > > > > against

> > > > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures who

> in a

> > > > > > futile

> > > > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin

> projecting,

> > > > Yaga

> > > > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient scripts

> and

> > > > even

> > > > > > tried to

> > > > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic

> astrological

> > > > signs

> > > > > > also into

> > > > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't it

> that

> > > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same?

> > > > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically

> acceptable

> > > > path,

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > enough evidence in support.

> > > > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all

> > > > authentic.

> > > > > > Giving it

> > > > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is

> ignorance.

> > > > Rama

> > > > > > is god

> > > > > > > > > or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of a

> made

> > > > up

> > > > > > text like

> > > > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written by

> > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > for sure

> > > > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of partiality

> and

> > > > hatred

> > > > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was a

> great

> > > > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta,

> and

> > > > > > ascribing the

> > > > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available

> Ramayana on

> > > > him

> > > > > > is a

> > > > > > > > > SIN, and an insult of that great sage.

> > > > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- In

> , " Avtar

> > > > > > Krishen Kaul "

> > > > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following

> argument and

> > > > > > > > > > possibilities ->

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to ponder

> on the

> > > > > > following

> > > > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi

> Mahakavya

> > > > > > i.e. the

> > > > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history and

> > > > Maharshi

> > > > > > Valamiki

> > > > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated much

> > > > earlier

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed

> much

> > > > earlier

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:

> > > > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or Mangal

> Shani

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > in the VJ

> > > > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the

> > > > Mahabharata

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any

> Mangal

> > > > Shani

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas prior

> to the

> > > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of

> Bhagwan

> > > > Rama,

> > > > > > > Bharata,

> > > > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki

> Ramayana?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of all

> the

> > > > > > astronomers

> > > > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the

> irreconcilable

> > > > facts

> > > > > > that if

> > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon in

> > > > Karakta in

> > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been

> Navmki

> > > > tithi

> > > > > > or vice-

> > > > > > > > > > versa?

> > > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether

> the so

> > > > called

> > > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

> i.e.

> > > > the

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never

> have been

> > > > in

> > > > > > Karkata

> > > > > > > > > > if the sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even

> Mina!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile these

> > > > > > irreconcilable

> > > > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing stock

> of

> > > > > > ourselves!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit

> that

> > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

> later day

> > > > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing

> overzealous

> > > > > > astrologers who

> > > > > > > > > > did not know even this much of astronomy that if

> the sun

> > > > of

> > > > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could never

> have

> > > > been

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His

> siblings!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT THAT

> WE DO

> > > > NOT

> > > > > > HAVE A

> > > > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS

> > > > INCREASED

> > > > > > SINCE IT

> > > > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA

> KARTUM

> > > > > > SAMARTH AND

> > > > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is that

> it

> > > > means

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa etc.

> did not

> > > > > > > believe in

> > > > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.

> > > > > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

Mr. Rao is a great scholar , obviously he is right

Dictionary meaning is to guide us , ultimate meaning should depend on context.

Sloka on the birth of Lakshaman's says -ravoa- this points out to two possibilities:

1 , Sun is with rising sign Cancer.

2 Sign Cancer was rising and Sun was placed in most prominent position ,i.e NOON

As namakaran sanskar of all the four brothers was performed simultaneously after 11thday of the birth of Lord RAM.

Lakshaman and Satrughan was born in Noon in Ashlesha Nakshatra when Cancer was rising.

Regards. G.K.GOELPh: 09350311433Add: L-409, SARITA VIHARNEW DELHI-110 076INDIA

HosabettuRamadas Rao <ramadasrao Sent: Monday, 12 November, 2007 2:50:13 AMRE: Re: Nirukti of the word 'Lagna' - To Finn ji

 

Dear Finn Ji,As per my knowledge you are correct.As per Brihajjataka, Yavana Jataka etc.Kuleera means Karkataka Rashi.karkaH kuLIraakrutirambusa msthovakshaHprad esho vihitaschadhaatuH. ......This shloka is from Yavana Jataka.Meaning karkataka Rashi is like the shape of KulIraakruti which is in water,kalapurusha' s chest ( vaksha sthala ) portion,indicative of Dhatu sign or Rashi,also indicative of well,river and watery land.I hope this helps.With Regards,Ramadas Rao.

 

 

ancient_indian_ astrologysreesog Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:12:21 +0000[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Nirukti of the word 'Lagna' - To Finn ji

 

 

Dear Kaul ji,Let us consider your major arguments -==>> to interpret Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched, to > say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as > Karkata!<==That is simply your ignorance - many major dictionaries andNikhandus deals with in detail - and clarifies it well that the word'Kuleera' could mean 'Capricorn'. To convince you, I will provide adetails quotes and references from them in the next post. ==>> If you are using "Lagna" for signs, then you cannot help placing > five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what> the ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, "nakshatre aditi daivatye > svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna > saha" <==This too is simply ignorance. The sloka bit means "(Rama took birth)in Punarvasu Nakshatra, while 5 planets where in own

house orexaltation, when Jupiter was with Moon in Cancer sign". Two thingsshould be noted here -1) To denote Cancer sign the word Karkata is used (and NOT Kuleera)2) There too the word "Lagna" means "Sign" itself. Note that"karkate lagne vakpatav induna saha" means "In Cancer SIGN Jupitor waswith Moon"==>> Secondly, we cannot overlook the fact that "Adyatma Ramayana", which > you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas<== There is more than one ignorance in your statements. Let see whatthey are - 1) Adhyatma Ramayana is NOT a text written in Kerala. It is - "anancient Sanskrit work extolling the spiritual virtues of the story ofRamayana. It comprises around 4200 verses, is embedded in Brahm & #257;ndaPurana and is considered to be authored by Ved Vyasa" - wikipedia.(http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Adhyatma_ Ramayana)2) What is popular in Kerala is an INDIPENDED TRANSILATION ofAdyatma Ramayana written by Tunjattu Ramanujan Ezhuttacchan who isknown as the 'father of malayalam language' a great scholar. 3) We are NOT discussing Adhyatma Ramayana but VALMIKI RAMAYANA - sodon't bring in irrelevant quotes in between. Note that while ValmikiRamayana does not mention Madhu masa etc Adhayata Ramayana does it.Note that while Valmiki Ramayana tells us that the birth took place inthe 12th (Nakshatra) Month from the end date of Putra kameshti,Adhyatma Ramayana tells us that it happened at the 10th month. So withthis much inconsistencies between these two texts - Adhyatma Ramayanaquote is NOT worth considering while discussing "Astrology in ValmikiRamayana". It is clear that you are bringing in the Adhyatma ramayanaquote only because it mentions your pet "Madhu

Masa" in it - but thatis irrelevant to the current context. Please try to depend ONLY ONreferences from Valmiki Ramayana alone while discussing the same. 4) I am not interested in your habit and inconsistent nature instudying subject and introducing diversions. So I don't have any timeto waste after the quote and inconsistencies you presented regardingthe Adhyatma Ramayana quote. Again it simply means that I have wastedenough time on the ignorance of "Tropical Calendarvalas" . Note: So learn to be sincere and be truthful - and if clarity comesin from some where learn to welcome it – and if possible drop thefanatism and use of bad words. You are dragging me to the samedirection – `I know only to deal with bad with bad and good with good'– so the end result would be the group becoming a mud house and Idon't want it. So please avoid name calling here onwards and me toowill never resort to it.

Let us keep the group clean and sane. Peoplehas already started complaining about the insane useless direction inwhich this group is going - both you and me are culprits for the same.Please know it as a fact. Regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, "Avtar Krishen Kaul"<jyotirved@. ..> wrote:>> Shri Sreenadh ji,> Namaskar!> You are talking of an event of second century BCE. The Surya > Sidhanta, which gives the mothodology of calculating "lagna" was > very much in vogue then. When you are using the word Lagna in the > context of planetary positions vis-a-vis some horoscope/birth chart, > it is unimaginable that instead of the common interpretation of the > word Lagna i.e. the sign

rising at a particular time, > the "astrologer" concerned would have resorted to some other meaning > of that word! He could very well have used the word "rashi" instead > of Lagna then.> Secondly, to interpet Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched, to > say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as > Karkata!> Then you are also ascribing a "misprint"or some problem > with "Sandhi" for the word "abyudyete ravav" and interpreted it as > the description of Mars in Capricorn! That also is far fetched!> > If you are using "Lagna" for signs, then you cannot help placing > five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what the > ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, "nakshatre aditi daivatye > svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna > saha" Here you can club the words as "panchasu graheshu karkate >

lagne, vakpatav induna saha" and interpret them as "five planets > were in Karkata rashi, which included the Moon and Jupiter". You > cannot interpret "lagna" as sign in one place and at the same time > as lagna i.e. aschendant in another place in one and the same > chapter.> > The maximum difficulty that arises out of this hypothesis is that in > second century BCE, there was no methodology of calculating planets > correctly, whether it was India or any other country! India, on the > other hand, was saddled with the Surya Sidhanta, which is > fundamentally the most incorrect work. So it is just a possibility > that the astrologer concerned could have calculated the planetary > positions as per the Surya Sidhanta and then implanted them in the > Valmiki Ramayana! Those calculatons can give very surprising > results!> > Secondly, we cannot

overlok the fact that "Adyatma Ramayana", which > you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas> "madhumasse site pakshe navmyam karkate shubhe> punarvasu sahite uchasthe grahapanchake> mesham pooshani samprapte pushpavrishti samakule aviraseej jagan > nathah parmatma sanatanah" (1/3/14-15)> > A running translation of these shlokas is> "In the month of Madhu, shukla paksha --bright half--in navmi tithi > and punarvasu nakshara, when five planets were exalted, the sun was > in Mesha, the Eternal Lord of the worlds, Parmatma, incarnated.. .."> > > 1. Here the sun has specifically been put in Mesha but at the same > time it is Madhu masa -- which is an astronomical impossibility!> > 2. Five planets are exalted but there is no mention that any planet > is in its own rashi.> > 3. Though there is no menion of

Karkata lagna or the Moon in > Karkata, but if the Sun is in Mesha and it is Navmi tithi, it means > that even if the sun is in 1 degree of Mesha the Moon has to be at a > distance of more than 96 degrees from the same. Thus the Moon will > be in Karkata 7 degrees to Karkata 19 degrees. But then Punarvasu > nakshatra ranges from Mithuna 20 degrees to Karkata 3-20. Thus it > is again an astronomical impossibility.> > In short, whichever way you look at it, whether it is the Valmiki > Ramayana or the Adyatma Ramayana, the astronomical Rashi position > of the planets cannot be justifed at all!> With regards,> AKK> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh" > <sreesog@>

wrote:> >> > Dear Finn ji,> > The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means> > join/conjunct/ mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means "the one > that> > joins/conjuncts/ mixes/combines" . There are many words that sprung > from> > this root. Look at the following word -> > "Lagna MandalaH" - it means the same as "Rasi Chakra" and means> > 'Zodiac'. > > Mandala = Chakra = Circle> > Lagna = Rasi = Sign> > Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also > means 'Sign> > Circle' or in other words both are other names for the Ecliptic, > the> > zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any > standard> > Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna' can> > means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the>

> following Nirukti -> > 'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which> > join/conjunct/ mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna'; certainly > the> > word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets > joins> > (traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every > sign> > means 'Lagna'. > > Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'> > meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/ mix/combine (or in other words> > shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna' can> > refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'. > > Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition > such as> > 'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called > Lagna'.> > Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated with > the>

> word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the word 'rising'> > that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the > horizon,> > the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here too> > and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant' > acceptable. > > Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as > done> > in Prasnamarga) , the word 'Lagna' loses all its association with> > 'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!> > Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora Lagna',> > 'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which are > NOT> > AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore in > such> > contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes > erroneous. > > Considering

all these points it becomes clear that accepting the> > meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana' context > is a> > truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and > Dictionaries.> > Hope this helps. > > Love,> > Sreenadh> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > <sreesog@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Finn ji,> > > The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the > meaning 'Sign' to> > > the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next post. > Now> > > coming to your next argument -> > > ==>> > > > However, even if we agree for the sake of

argument that lagna > means > > > > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has > very > > > > clearly been stated "kuleere abyudite ravav" i.e. when the sun > was > > > > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of > > > > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana > and > > > > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.> > > <==> > > It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I > will> > > re-state it here. > > > "kuleere abyudite ravav" It could be a simple sandhi mistake > of a> > > missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be "kuleere> > > abyuditaraavav" , meaning "Mars (aara) was in Capricorn > (Kuleera)".> > > Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is

given in Sanskrit> > > Nikhandus as "Kuleero Nakra Karkatau" meaning "The word Kuleera > is> > > used for Capricon and Cancer". The auther of Hridyapadha vyakhya > of> > > Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various > Nikhandus and> > > argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is also > very> > > popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows that > apart> > > from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the > position> > > of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from the> > > description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and > Mercury> > > are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the > Nakshatra> > > of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it >

becomes> > > clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days, and > also> > > that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only the> > > planetary position. > > > Love,> > > Sreenadh> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Avtar Krishen > Kaul"> > > <jyotirved@> wrote:> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh" > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,> >

> > Namaskar!> > > > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree that > the > > > > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are > concoctions > > > > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a period > of > > > > second century BCE.> > > > However, you have also said> > > > > > > > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement > given is> > > > "Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee" should be> > > > translated to "Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at > that > > > > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces" !! (Since Lagna > means > > > > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries > and > > > > Nirukti of the word

Lagna too clearly support this meaning of > the > > > > word Lagna) ->> > > > > > > > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr > useless or > > > > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware of > the > > > > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of > birth/event. > > > > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya > Sidhanta > > > > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work. > The > > > > complete sholka is "Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne > > > > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite > ravav"--> > > > 1/18/15> > > > > > > > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However, > even > > >

> if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign, > how do > > > > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly > been > > > > stated "kuleere abyudite ravav" i.e. when the sun was in > Kuleera > > > > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan > Rama in > > > > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana > could not > > > > be in Karkata in any case. > > > > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was born > in > > > > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and (iii-> iv)> > > > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in "Sarpi" i.e. Ashlesha. They are > in a > > > > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in > Karkata, > > > > who are younger by

just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and > Bharata > > > > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!> > > > > > > > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been a > > > > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.> > > > With regards,> > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul> > > > >> > > > > Dear Kaul ji,> > > > > ==>> > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the > > > > Valmiki > > > > > > Ramaya was "implanted" in that work by some "jyotishi" of > either > > > > > > that period or a later one!> > > > > <==> > > > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is > re-> > > > written> > >

> > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is the > correct> > > > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently > available> > > > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly > the work > > > > of> > > > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a > planetary> > > > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!! > > > > > ==>> > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any > > > > obscurity, we > > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation > came into > > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-> Avtar and > > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!>

> > > > <== > > > > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said that -> it is> > > > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in the > recent> > > > > past. He just took some samples from the recent history > known to> > > > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that > fulfills his> > > > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic poet' > who > > > > knew> > > > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who > mistook to> > > > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men with a > tail> > > > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in > Ramayana> > > > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )>

> > > > ==>> > > > > > Even here, you are using "J Hora" for 157 BC when all we > had at > > > > that > > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles > was the > > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha > > > > Sidhantika!> > > > > <== > > > > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who > wrote> > > > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts - not > that > > > > he is> > > > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary > position > > > > of> > > > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and > mentions > > > > that> > > > > it was

Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami. No > great> > > > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much, and> > > > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of the > > > > people in> > > > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary > position > > > > using> > > > > that. > > > > > If you are bewildered by the statement that "ALL THE > PLANETS ARE> > > > > MENTIONED", then here goes the clarification:> > > > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated> > > > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.> > > > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not > clear.> > > > > Then comes the interesting part -> > > > >

4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement > given > > > > is> > > > > "Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee" should be> > > > > translated to "Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at > that > > > > time> > > > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces" !! (Since Lagna means > Sign - > > > > as> > > > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and > Nirukti of> > > > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the word > > > > Lagna) -> > > > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!> > > > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and > Satrukhna it is> > > > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that "Kuleere>

> > > > Abhuditeaaravo" means "Arra (Mars) was in Capricon > (Kuleera)"!! > > > > Which> > > > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion > about 'Sun in> > > > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the > position > > > > of> > > > > Mars is clearly stated! > > > > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which > as per > > > > the> > > > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes clarified. > Sa is in> > > > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus! > > > > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the > confusion> > > > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused by > our> > > > > ignorance and lack of effort to

understand the facts! > > > > > Love,> > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Avtar > Krishen > > > > Kaul"> > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > Namaskar!> > > > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156 > (Gregorian> > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see what > I > > > > mean. The> > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in Ramayana.>> > > > > > >

> > > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of > yourself by > > > > such > > > > > > comments!> > > > > > > > > > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary position > of > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the > planetary > > > > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to > two > > > > > > conclusions: > > > > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March 14, > 157 > > > > BC at > > > > > > 9-15 PM> > > > > > or> > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in the > > > > Valmiki > > > > > > Ramaya was "implanted" in that

work by some "jyotishi" of > either > > > > > > that period or a later one!> > > > > > > > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any > > > > obscurity, we > > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation > came into > > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-> Avtar and > > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological knowledge > and > > > > latest > > > > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish > jyotishi > > > > has > > > > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC into

> the > > > > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine incarnation > > > > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!> > > > > > > > > > > > Even here, you are using "J Hora" for 157 BC when all we > had at > > > > that > > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles > was the > > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the Pancha > > > > Sidhantika!> > > > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless > astronomical > > > > work > > > > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so much > so > > > > that > > > > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!> > > > >

> QED/QEF> > > > > > With regards, > > > > > > AKK> > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh" > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Finn ji,> > > > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156 > (Gregorian> > > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see > what I > > > > mean. > > > > > > The> > > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in > Ramayana. > > > > > > > Let us

look at the core argument of Kaul ji -> > > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the so > > > > called > > > > > > sayana> > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa > i.e. the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of > Bhagwan > > > > Rama.> > > > > > > <== > > > > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki > Ramayana > > > > which> > > > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa'; I > hope > > > > Kaul ji> > > > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same text. ;=)

> > > > Actually > > > > > > if> > > > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the > birth > > > > took > > > > > > place> > > > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu. > > > > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the > word 'Lagna' > > > > is a> > > > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta > defenition > > > > of > > > > > > the> > > > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc, > even > > > > though > > > > > > the> > > > > > > second meaning became popular later. > > > > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this

text - > was > > > > > > describing> > > > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to him -> > > > > possibly > > > > > > a> > > > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period, and > that is > > > > why> > > > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine one. > > > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,> > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it > may > > > > better to> > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the > subject.> > > > > > > <==> > > > > > > I agree - but is it not

that these discussions itself > is > > > > part of > > > > > > the> > > > > > > investigations into the subject? > > > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions > regarding > > > > > > Ramayana's> > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If > > > > possible > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these horoscope-> descriptions > > > > to > > > > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts. > > > > > > > <==> > > > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -> > > > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas

& Tantric texts> > > > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature, Epics, > > > > Puranas > > > > > > etc > > > > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data > around, and > > > > we > > > > > > can> > > > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions > agree > > > > with> > > > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not. > > > > > > > ==>> > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the > birth > > > > and > > > > > > the> > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this > > > > description> > > > > > >

> myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana > with > > > > the > > > > > > one> > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are there > > > > > > differences?> > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and > relevant > > > > > > information.> > > > > > > <==> > > > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing - > our > > > > major> > > > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki > > > > Ramayana' > > > > > > (and> > > > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not forget > the > > > > main > > > > > > area>

> > > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end of > our > > > > study, > > > > > > for> > > > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come > up. We > > > > > > will > > > > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further > > > > > > investigations> > > > > > > into other areas. :=)> > > > > > > Love,> > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Finn > Wandahl"> > > > > > > <finn.wandahl@

> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions > regarding > > > > the > > > > > > origin> > > > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be > confusing,> > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it > may > > > > better to> > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into the > subject.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions > regarding > > > > > > Ramayana's> > > > > > > >

description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna. If > > > > possible > > > > > > it may> > > > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descripti ons > to > > > > similar> > > > > > > > descriptions from other texts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of the > birth > > > > and > > > > > > the> > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen this > > > > description> > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from Ramayana > with > > > > the > > > > > > one> > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or

are there > > > > > > differences?> > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and > relevant > > > > > > information.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finn> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Sreenadh"> > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,> > > > > > > >

> ==>> > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit > that > > > > these> > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are > later day> > > > > > > > > > interpolations > > > > > > > > > <==> > > > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that > the > > > > whole > > > > > > ramayana> > > > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC and > 2 > > > > AD? > > > > > > With the> > > > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions, > > > > Ardhasastra > > > > > > (of> > > >

> > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I believe > that > > > > it > > > > > > is clear> > > > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD > for > > > > sure - > > > > > > or better> > > > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself. > > > > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological reference > in > > > > > > Ramayana is> > > > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the > line of > > > > all > > > > > > the> > > > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly > superstitions. > > > > Actually > > > > > > that> > >

> > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT AT > ALL > > > > > > written by> > > > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid brahmins > of > > > > sunga > > > > > > period.> > > > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such a > text?!!> > > > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact > that - > > > > The > > > > > > whole> > > > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text created > with a > > > > > > purpose -> > > > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD. > Even the> > > > > > > > > astronomical references

in it is going in the same > > > > direction. > > > > > > If there> > > > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently > available > > > > one (as> > > > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata) , then that text is buried > in > > > > dept > > > > > > by the> > > > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a purpose > and > > > > wanted > > > > > > to> > > > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by > calling > > > > Buddha > > > > > > a thief> > > > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make of > that > > > > era > > > >

> > (BC 200> > > > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary > works as > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how > about > > > > going > > > > > > against> > > > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures who > in a > > > > > > futile> > > > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin > projecting, > > > > Yaga> > > > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient scripts > and > > > > even > > > > > > tried to> > > > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic > astrological > >

> > signs > > > > > > also into> > > > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't it > that > > > > > > Ramayana is> > > > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same? > > > > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically > acceptable > > > > path, > > > > > > with> > > > > > > > > enough evidence in support. > > > > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all > > > > authentic. > > > > > > Giving it> > > > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is > ignorance. > > > > Rama > > > > > > is god> > > > > > > > >

or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of a > made > > > > up > > > > > > text like> > > > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written by > > > > Valmiki > > > > > > for sure> > > > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of partiality > and > > > > hatred> > > > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was a > great> > > > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta, > and > > > > > > ascribing the> > > > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available > Ramayana on > > > > him > > > > > > is a> > > > > > > > > SIN,

and an insult of that great sage. > > > > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking. > > > > > > > > > Love,> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Avtar > > > > > > Krishen Kaul"> > > > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > > > > Namaskar!> > > > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following >

argument and > > > > > > > > > > possibilities ->> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to ponder > on the > > > > > > following > > > > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi > Mahakavya > > > > > > i.e. the > > > > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history and > > > > Maharshi > > > > > > Valamiki > > > > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated much > > > > earlier > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed > much > > > > earlier > > > > > > than> > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:> > > > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or

Mangal > Shani > > > > etc.> > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > in the VJ> > > > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the > > > > Mahabharata> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any > Mangal > > > > Shani > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas prior > to the > > > > > > Surya > > > > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!> > > > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of > Bhagwan > > > > Rama,> > > > > > > Bharata, > > > > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki > Ramayana?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of all > the > > > > > > astronomers > > > > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the > irreconcilable > > > > facts > > > > > > that if > > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon in > > > > Karakta in > > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been > Navmki > > > >

tithi > > > > > > or vice-> > > > > > > > > > versa?> > > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether > the so > > > > called> > > > > > > sayana > > > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa > i.e. > > > > the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of > > > > Bhagwan > > > > > > Rama.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never > have been > > > > in > > > > > > Karkata > > > > > > > > > > if the

sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even > Mina!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile these > > > > > > irreconcilable > > > > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing stock > of > > > > > > ourselves!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must admit > that > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are > later day > > > > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing > overzealous > > > > > > astrologers who > > > > > > > > > > did

not know even this much of astronomy that if > the sun > > > > of > > > > > > Bhagwan > > > > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could never > have > > > > been > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His > siblings!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT THAT > WE DO > > > > NOT > > > > > > HAVE A > > > > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS > > > > INCREASED > > > > > > SINCE IT > > > > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA >

KARTUM > > > > > > SAMARTH AND > > > > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is that > it > > > > means > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa etc. > did not> > > > > > > believe in > > > > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.> > > > > > > > > > With regards,> > > > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul> >>

 

Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!

Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it.

[Guest guest]

Dear Goal ji,

Rao ji might be a great scholar - but it is references that matter.

I have presented my amount of effort on the same with -

1)

Sreenadh/

Kriya-Tavuru.pdf and

2) and the post :

/message/4216

 

I am yet to see any such valid effort from the part of Roa ji. I am

yet to seem resourceful, informative long mails also from his part -

even though it usually said that he is an SJC guru. May be his future

mails may contain some informative material I hope. I am thankful to

him for being a member of this group - and waiting for some long

useful and informative mails from him with proper Nikhandu or

dictionary references on this subject as well.

Regards,

Sreenadh

 

, Gopal Goel

<gkgoel1937 wrote:

>

> Dear Friends,

> Mr. Rao is a great scholar , obviously he is right

> Dictionary meaning is to guide us , ultimate meaning should depend

on context.

> Sloka on the birth of Lakshaman's says -ravoa- this points out to

two possibilities:

> 1 , Sun is with rising sign Cancer.

> 2 Sign Cancer was rising and Sun was placed in most prominent

position ,i.e NOON

> As namakaran sanskar of all the four brothers was performed

simultaneously after 11thday of the birth of Lord RAM.

> Lakshaman and Satrughan was born in Noon in Ashlesha Nakshatra

when Cancer was rising.

> Regards.

>

> G.K.GOEL

> Ph: 09350311433

> Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR

> NEW DELHI-110 076

> INDIA

>

>

>

>

> HosabettuRamadas Rao <ramadasrao

>

> Monday, 12 November, 2007 2:50:13 AM

> RE: Re: Nirukti of the

word 'Lagna' - To Finn ji

>

> Dear Finn Ji,

> As per my knowledge you are correct.As per Brihajjataka, Yavana

Jataka etc.Kuleera means Karkataka Rashi.

> karkaH kuLIraakrutirambusa msthovakshaHprad esho

vihitaschadhaatuH. ......This shloka is from Yavana Jataka.Meaning

karkataka Rashi is like the shape of KulIraakruti which is in

water,kalapurusha' s chest ( vaksha sthala ) portion,indicative of

Dhatu sign or Rashi,also indicative of well,river and watery land.

> I hope this helps.

> With Regards,

> Ramadas Rao.

>

>

>

>

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> sreesog

> Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:12:21 +0000

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Nirukti of the

word 'Lagna' - To Finn ji

>

>

> Dear Kaul ji,

> Let us consider your major arguments -

> ==>

> > to interpret Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched, to

> > say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as

> > Karkata!

> <==

> That is simply your ignorance - many major dictionaries and

> Nikhandus deals with in detail - and clarifies it well that the word

> 'Kuleera' could mean 'Capricorn'. To convince you, I will provide a

> details quotes and references from them in the next post.

> ==>

> > If you are using " Lagna " for signs, then you cannot help placing

> > five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what

> > the ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, " nakshatre aditi daivatye

> > svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna

> > saha "

> <==

> This too is simply ignorance. The sloka bit means " (Rama took birth)

> in Punarvasu Nakshatra, while 5 planets where in own house or

> exaltation, when Jupiter was with Moon in Cancer sign " . Two things

> should be noted here -

> 1) To denote Cancer sign the word Karkata is used (and NOT Kuleera)

> 2) There too the word " Lagna " means " Sign " itself. Note that

> " karkate lagne vakpatav induna saha " means " In Cancer SIGN Jupitor

was

> with Moon "

> ==>

> > Secondly, we cannot overlook the fact that " Adyatma Ramayana " ,

which

> > you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas

> <==

> There is more than one ignorance in your statements. Let see what

> they are -

> 1) Adhyatma Ramayana is NOT a text written in Kerala. It is - " an

> ancient Sanskrit work extolling the spiritual virtues of the story

of

> Ramayana. It comprises around 4200 verses, is embedded in

Brahm & #257;nda

> Purana and is considered to be authored by Ved Vyasa " - wikipedia.

> (http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Adhyatma_ Ramayana)

> 2) What is popular in Kerala is an INDIPENDED TRANSILATION of

> Adyatma Ramayana written by Tunjattu Ramanujan Ezhuttacchan who is

> known as the 'father of malayalam language' a great scholar.

> 3) We are NOT discussing Adhyatma Ramayana but VALMIKI RAMAYANA - so

> don't bring in irrelevant quotes in between. Note that while Valmiki

> Ramayana does not mention Madhu masa etc Adhayata Ramayana does it.

> Note that while Valmiki Ramayana tells us that the birth took place

in

> the 12th (Nakshatra) Month from the end date of Putra kameshti,

> Adhyatma Ramayana tells us that it happened at the 10th month. So

with

> this much inconsistencies between these two texts - Adhyatma

Ramayana

> quote is NOT worth considering while discussing " Astrology in

Valmiki

> Ramayana " . It is clear that you are bringing in the Adhyatma

ramayana

> quote only because it mentions your pet " Madhu Masa " in it - but

that

> is irrelevant to the current context. Please try to depend ONLY ON

> references from Valmiki Ramayana alone while discussing the same.

> 4) I am not interested in your habit and inconsistent nature in

> studying subject and introducing diversions. So I don't have any

time

> to waste after the quote and inconsistencies you presented regarding

> the Adhyatma Ramayana quote. Again it simply means that I have

wasted

> enough time on the ignorance of " Tropical Calendarvalas " .

> Note: So learn to be sincere and be truthful - and if clarity comes

> in from some where learn to welcome it †" and if possible drop the

> fanatism and use of bad words. You are dragging me to the same

> direction †" `I know only to deal with bad with bad and good with

good'

> †" so the end result would be the group becoming a mud house and I

> don't want it. So please avoid name calling here onwards and me too

> will never resort to it. Let us keep the group clean and sane.

People

> has already started complaining about the insane useless direction

in

> which this group is going - both you and me are culprits for the

same.

> Please know it as a fact.

> Regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, " Avtar Krishen

Kaul "

> <jyotirved@ ..> wrote:

> >

> > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > Namaskar!

> > You are talking of an event of second century BCE. The Surya

> > Sidhanta, which gives the mothodology of calculating " lagna " was

> > very much in vogue then. When you are using the word Lagna in the

> > context of planetary positions vis-a-vis some horoscope/birth

chart,

> > it is unimaginable that instead of the common interpretation of

the

> > word Lagna i.e. the sign rising at a particular time,

> > the " astrologer " concerned would have resorted to some other

meaning

> > of that word! He could very well have used the word " rashi "

instead

> > of Lagna then.

> > Secondly, to interpet Kuleera as Capricorn is also far fetched,

to

> > say the least, since all the astrological texts describe it as

> > Karkata!

> > Then you are also ascribing a " misprint " or some problem

> > with " Sandhi " for the word " abyudyete ravav " and interpreted it

as

> > the description of Mars in Capricorn! That also is far fetched!

> >

> > If you are using " Lagna " for signs, then you cannot help placing

> > five planets of Bhagwan Rama in Karkata, since this is what the

> > ninth sholka of Canto 18 says, " nakshatre aditi daivatye

> > svochsamstheshu panchasu graheshu karkate lagne vakpatav induna

> > saha " Here you can club the words as " panchasu graheshu karkate

> > lagne, vakpatav induna saha " and interpret them as " five planets

> > were in Karkata rashi, which included the Moon and Jupiter " . You

> > cannot interpret " lagna " as sign in one place and at the same

time

> > as lagna i.e. aschendant in another place in one and the same

> > chapter.

> >

> > The maximum difficulty that arises out of this hypothesis is that

in

> > second century BCE, there was no methodology of calculating

planets

> > correctly, whether it was India or any other country! India, on

the

> > other hand, was saddled with the Surya Sidhanta, which is

> > fundamentally the most incorrect work. So it is just a

possibility

> > that the astrologer concerned could have calculated the planetary

> > positions as per the Surya Sidhanta and then implanted them in

the

> > Valmiki Ramayana! Those calculatons can give very surprising

> > results!

> >

> > Secondly, we cannot overlok the fact that " Adyatma Ramayana " ,

which

> > you says was written in Kerala, contains the following shlokas

> > " madhumasse site pakshe navmyam karkate shubhe

> > punarvasu sahite uchasthe grahapanchake

> > mesham pooshani samprapte pushpavrishti samakule aviraseej jagan

> > nathah parmatma sanatanah " (1/3/14-15)

> >

> > A running translation of these shlokas is

> > " In the month of Madhu, shukla paksha --bright half--in navmi

tithi

> > and punarvasu nakshara, when five planets were exalted, the sun

was

> > in Mesha, the Eternal Lord of the worlds, Parmatma,

incarnated.. .. "

> >

> >

> > 1. Here the sun has specifically been put in Mesha but at the

same

> > time it is Madhu masa -- which is an astronomical impossibility!

> >

> > 2. Five planets are exalted but there is no mention that any

planet

> > is in its own rashi.

> >

> > 3. Though there is no menion of Karkata lagna or the Moon in

> > Karkata, but if the Sun is in Mesha and it is Navmi tithi, it

means

> > that even if the sun is in 1 degree of Mesha the Moon has to be

at a

> > distance of more than 96 degrees from the same. Thus the Moon

will

> > be in Karkata 7 degrees to Karkata 19 degrees. But then Punarvasu

> > nakshatra ranges from Mithuna 20 degrees to Karkata 3-20. Thus it

> > is again an astronomical impossibility.

> >

> > In short, whichever way you look at it, whether it is the Valmiki

> > Ramayana or the Adyatma Ramayana, the astronomical Rashi position

> > of the planets cannot be justifed at all!

> > With regards,

> > AKK

> >

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > The root (dhatu) for the word 'Lagna' is 'Lag' which means

> > > join/conjunct/ mix/combine. 'Lagati' or 'Lagitam' means " the

one

> > that

> > > joins/conjuncts/ mixes/combines " . There are many words that

sprung

> > from

> > > this root. Look at the following word -

> > > " Lagna MandalaH " - it means the same as " Rasi Chakra " and means

> > > 'Zodiac'.

> > > Mandala = Chakra = Circle

> > > Lagna = Rasi = Sign

> > > Lagna Mandala means 'Sign Circle' and 'Rasi Chakra' also

> > means 'Sign

> > > Circle' or in other words both are other names for the

Ecliptic,

> > the

> > > zodiac circle. The word 'Lagna Mandala' you can find in any

> > standard

> > > Sanskrit dictionary. Thus it is evident that the word 'Lagna'

can

> > > means 'Sign'. Now coming to Nirukti, the word 'Lagna' has the

> > > following Nirukti -

> > > 'Lagati GrahaiH iti Lagna' meaning 'the one which

> > > join/conjunct/ mix/combine with Planets is called Lagna';

certainly

> > the

> > > word lagna here refers to 'Sign' because it is when the planets

> > joins

> > > (traverse through) signs that the results originate. Thus every

> > sign

> > > means 'Lagna'.

> > > Another Nirukti for the word Lagna is 'Lagati Phalai iti Lagna'

> > > meaning 'the one which join/conjuct/ mix/combine (or in other

words

> > > shows) with the results is called Lagna'; here the word 'Lagna'

can

> > > refer either to 'Sign' or to 'Asc'.

> > > Later the the word 'Lagna' got a better and clear definition

> > such as

> > > 'Raseenam Udayo Lagna' meaning the 'the rising sign is called

> > Lagna'.

> > > Note that here also the word lagna is essentially associated

with

> > the

> > > word 'Sign', but still it is due to importance to the

word 'rising'

> > > that it got translated as 'Asc'. Of course since the at the

> > horizon,

> > > the sky and the earth joins and so the word 'Lagna' is apt here

too

> > > and that is why the translation of this word as 'Ascendant'

> > acceptable.

> > > Note that when used interchangeably with the words Arudha (as

> > done

> > > in Prasnamarga) , the word 'Lagna' loses all its association

with

> > > 'rising sign' even today, and resort to the old meaning 'Sign'!

> > > Further there are many Lagnas such as 'Ghati Lagna', 'Hora

Lagna',

> > > 'Bhava Lagna', 'Sree Lagna', 'Arudha Lagna' etc some of which

are

> > NOT

> > > AT ALL related to 'rising' or 'horizon' in any way. Therefore

in

> > such

> > > contexts to translating the word 'Lagna' as 'Asc' becomes

> > erroneous.

> > > Considering all these points it becomes clear that accepting the

> > > meaning 'Sign' for the word 'Lagna' in 'Valmiki Ramayana'

context

> > is a

> > > truly acceptable argument, well supported by Nirukti and

> > Dictionaries.

> > > Hope this helps.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > The nirukti and dictionary quotes which gives the

> > meaning 'Sign' to

> > > > the word 'Lagna' I will provide - please wait for the next

post.

> > Now

> > > > coming to your next argument -

> > > > ==>

> > > > > However, even if we agree for the sake of argument that

lagna

> > means

> > > > > sign, how do you say that the sun was in Mina since it has

> > very

> > > > > clearly been stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the

sun

> > was

> > > > > in Kuleera i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun

of

> > > > > Bhagwan Rama in Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana

> > and

> > > > > Shatrugana could not be in Karkata in any case.

> > > > <==

> > > > It is already answered in a previous mail to Kaul ji. But I

> > will

> > > > re-state it here.

> > > > " kuleere abyudite ravav " It could be a simple sandhi mistake

> > of a

> > > > missing 'aa'. And the correct reading could be " kuleere

> > > > abyuditaraavav " , meaning " Mars (aara) was in Capricorn

> > (Kuleera) " .

> > > > Note that the meaning of the word Kuleera is given in Sanskrit

> > > > Nikhandus as " Kuleero Nakra Karkatau " meaning " The word

Kuleera

> > is

> > > > used for Capricon and Cancer " . The auther of Hridyapadha

vyakhya

> > of

> > > > Brihajjataka clearly quotes many references from various

> > Nikhandus and

> > > > argues that the meaning Capricorn for the word Kuleera is

also

> > very

> > > > popular. Note that this solves all the confusion and shows

that

> > apart

> > > > from the position of Ju & Mo in Cancer the text provides the

> > position

> > > > of Many other planets as well. For example it is clear from

the

> > > > description given along with Bharata's Nakshatra that Sun and

> > Mercury

> > > > are in Pisces, and from the one given along while giving the

> > Nakshatra

> > > > of Lakshmana and Satrukhna that Mars is in Capricorn! So it

> > becomes

> > > > clear that all those brothers are born in consecutive days,

and

> > also

> > > > that the poet didn't gave the Asc of any of them - but only

the

> > > > planetary position.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Avtar

Krishen

> > Kaul "

> > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ .

com, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > From your curent post, it appears that both of us agree

that

> > the

> > > > > astrological references in the Valmiki Ramayana are

> > concoctions

> > > > > since the planetary positions appear to have been for a

period

> > of

> > > > > second century BCE.

> > > > > However, you have also said

> > > > >

> > > > > <4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the statement

> > given is

> > > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should be

> > > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and at

> > that

> > > > > time Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna

> > means

> > > > > Sign - as per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit

dictionaries

> > and

> > > > > Nirukti of the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning

of

> > the

> > > > > word Lagna) ->

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not agree with you here since no astrologer, howevr

> > useless or

> > > > > ignorant he/she may be or might have been would be unaware

of

> > the

> > > > > fact that lagna means a sign ascending at the time of

> > birth/event.

> > > > > There is a proecedure for calculating the same in the Surya

> > Sidhanta

> > > > > also, even if that is the most inaccuate astronomical work.

> > The

> > > > > complete sholka is " Pushye jatastu Bharato, Mina lagne

> > > > > prasannadheeh, sarpe jatatavtu saumitri, kuleere abyudite

> > ravav " --

> > > > > 1/18/15

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus according to me Mina Lagna means Mila langa! However,

> > even

> > > > > if we agree for the sake of argument that lagna means sign,

> > how do

> > > > > you say that the sun was in Mina since it has very clearly

> > been

> > > > > stated " kuleere abyudite ravav " i.e. when the sun was in

> > Kuleera

> > > > > i.e. Karkata Rashi! Thus even if we take the sun of Bhagwan

> > Rama in

> > > > > Mina instead of Mesha, the sun of Lakshmana and Shatrugana

> > could not

> > > > > be in Karkata in any case.

> > > > > The names of nakshatras are very clear i.e. Shri RAm was

born

> > in

> > > > > Aditi-Daivata i.e. Punarvasu (ii) Bharata in Pushya and

(iii-

> > iv)

> > > > > Lakshmana and Shatrugana in " Sarpi " i.e. Ashlesha. They are

> > in a

> > > > > sequence, but if the sun of Lakshamana and Shatrugana is in

> > Karkata,

> > > > > who are younger by just two days, the sun of Shri Ram and

> > Bharata

> > > > > cannot be either in Mina or Mesha!

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus whichever way we look at it, there certainly has been

a

> > > > > manipulation of planetary positions in the Valmiki Ramayana.

> > > > > With regards,

> > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in

the

> > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi "

of

> > either

> > > > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Exactly! Not only the horoscope but the whole Ramayana is

> > re-

> > > > > written

> > > > > > by 'Brhamanic priests' supported by Sunga dynasty - is

the

> > correct

> > > > > > argument. (And not by Jyotishis). Thus the currently

> > available

> > > > > > 'Brahmanic Ramayana' (Why insult sage Valmiki) is clearly

> > the work

> > > > > of

> > > > > > some 'brahmanic poet' who lived after BC 157, who took a

> > planetary

> > > > > > position known to him and ascribed it to Rama!!

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recorded history without any

> > > > > obscurity, we

> > > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation

> > came into

> > > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-

> > Avtar and

> > > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > You are absolutely right! And that is why it is said

that -

> > it is

> > > > > > just the imagination of the poet who wrote this poem in

the

> > recent

> > > > > > past. He just took some samples from the recent

history

> > known to

> > > > > > him and manipulated the to create a long poem - that

> > fulfills his

> > > > > > purpose. I don't have any disregard for the 'Brahmnic

poet'

> > who

> > > > > knew

> > > > > > what he was doing - but I feel pity for the people who

> > mistook to

> > > > > > represent actual history, and believe that Monkey men

with a

> > tail

> > > > > > lived in recent past and also that Sanskrit as used in

> > Ramayana

> > > > > > existed in the period of those monkey people. )

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all

we

> > had at

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

> > was the

> > > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the

Pancha

> > > > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Kaul ji, that is not that important - since the poet who

> > wrote

> > > > > > Ramyana is not that accurate in describing the charts -

not

> > that

> > > > > he is

> > > > > > not giving any longitudes but only describes a planetary

> > position

> > > > > of

> > > > > > BC 157. He gives the position of ALL THE PLANETS and

> > mentions

> > > > > that

> > > > > > it was Punarvasu Nakshatra and that the Tithi was Navami.

No

> > great

> > > > > > astronomical knowledge is necessory to mention this much,

and

> > > > > > therefore any software will do. Further JHora most of

the

> > > > > people in

> > > > > > this group is having and they can verify the planetary

> > position

> > > > > using

> > > > > > that.

> > > > > > If you are bewildered by the statement that " ALL THE

> > PLANETS ARE

> > > > > > MENTIONED " , then here goes the clarification:

> > > > > > 1) Thiti Navami, Nakshatra Punar vasu - clearly stated

> > > > > > 2) Ju, Ma in Cancer - clearly stated.

> > > > > > 3) 5 planets in own house or exaltation - statement not

> > clear.

> > > > > > Then comes the interesting part -

> > > > > > 4) While describing the Nakshatra of Bharata the

statement

> > given

> > > > > is

> > > > > > " Pushye jatastu bharato Meena Lagne Prasanna Dhee " should

be

> > > > > > translated to " Bharata was born in Pushya Nakshatra, and

at

> > that

> > > > > time

> > > > > > Sun & Mercury was in the Sign Pisces " !! (Since Lagna

means

> > Sign -

> > > > > as

> > > > > > per the usage in Ramayana; The Sanskrit dictionaries and

> > Nirukti of

> > > > > > the word Lagna too clearly support this meaning of the

word

> > > > > Lagna) -

> > > > > > Thus the position of Sun and Mercury are clearly stated!

> > > > > > 5) While describing the Nakshatra of Lakshmana and

> > Satrukhna it is

> > > > > > said that the Nakshatra is Aslesha and also that " Kuleere

> > > > > > Abhuditeaaravo " means " Arra (Mars) was in Capricon

> > (Kuleera) " !!

> > > > > Which

> > > > > > is exact! Thus it becomes clear that our confusion

> > about 'Sun in

> > > > > > Cancer' was just because of a Sandhi problem!! - Thus the

> > position

> > > > > of

> > > > > > Mars is clearly stated!

> > > > > > 6) Thus what remains is the position of Sa and Ve - which

> > as per

> > > > > the

> > > > > > given Tropical chart of 14 March 157 BC becomes

clarified.

> > Sa is in

> > > > > > Aquarius and Ve is in Taurus!

> > > > > > Thus the poet knew well what he is speaking about - the

> > confusion

> > > > > > till date regarding this planetary position being caused

by

> > our

> > > > > > ignorance and lack of effort to understand the facts!

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ .

com, " Avtar

> > Krishen

> > > > > Kaul "

> > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > <Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

> > (Gregorian

> > > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see

what

> > I

> > > > > mean. The

> > > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in

Ramayana.>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > My dear Sreenadhji, you are making really a fool of

> > yourself by

> > > > > such

> > > > > > > comments!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All you are trying to prove is that the planetary

position

> > of

> > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama, as given in the Valmiki Ramayana, is the

> > planetary

> > > > > > > position of March 14, 157 BC. Obviously, this leads to

> > two

> > > > > > > conclusions:

> > > > > > > 1) Either Bhagwan Ram was born on that date i.e. March

14,

> > 157

> > > > > BC at

> > > > > > > 9-15 PM

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > ii) The planetary position of Bhagwan Ram as given in

the

> > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > Ramaya was " implanted " in that work by some " jyotishi "

of

> > either

> > > > > > > that period or a later one!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Since 157 BC is an era of recroded history without any

> > > > > obscurity, we

> > > > > > > do not have any such records that a divine incarnation

> > came into

> > > > > > > existence then, especially since it is after the Budha-

> > Avtar and

> > > > > > > after the advent of Maya the mlechha into India!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus all you are proving with your astrological

knowledge

> > and

> > > > > latest

> > > > > > > astronomical softwares is that some uselss and foolish

> > jyotishi

> > > > > has

> > > > > > > implanted the planetary position of March 14, 157 BC

into

> > the

> > > > > > > Valmiki Ramayana just to make even that divine

incarnation

> > > > > > > subservient to planetary suzarinity!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Even here, you are using " J Hora " for 157 BC when all

we

> > had at

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > point of time i.e. 157 BC by way of astronomical bibles

> > was the

> > > > > > > Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha as given in the

Pancha

> > > > > Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > And as is an open secret, that is the most useless

> > astronomical

> > > > > work

> > > > > > > by someone who did not know even ABC of astronomy, so

much

> > so

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > he did not have any knowledge of precession either!

> > > > > > > QED/QEF

> > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > AKK

> > > > > > > --- In

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Finn ji,

> > > > > > > > Calculate the planetary position for 14 March -156

> > (Gregorian

> > > > > > > > Calendar); 9.15 PM approx in JHora; and you will see

> > what I

> > > > > mean.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > Horoscope matches well with the description in

> > Ramayana.

> > > > > > > > Let us look at the core argument of Kaul ji -

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether the

so

> > > > > called

> > > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu Masa

> > i.e. the

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth of

> > Bhagwan

> > > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > I am yet to see any reference in so called Valmiki

> > Ramayana

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > > states that 'Rama's birth took place in Madhu Masa';

I

> > hope

> > > > > Kaul ji

> > > > > > > > will come up with relevant quote from the same

text. ;=)

> > > > > Actually

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > we read through Ramayana we could easily see that the

> > birth

> > > > > took

> > > > > > > place

> > > > > > > > BEFORE the advent of Vasanta Ritu.

> > > > > > > > Also note that the meaning 'Sign(Rasi)' for the

> > word 'Lagna'

> > > > > is a

> > > > > > > > very popular one, and the original one. The Nirukta

> > defenition

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > word 'Lagna' itself means 'Sign (Rasi)' and not Asc,

> > even

> > > > > though

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > second meaning became popular later.

> > > > > > > > And so the conclusion - who ever made up this text -

> > was

> > > > > > > describing

> > > > > > > > a recent planetary position which was well known to

him -

> >

> > > > > possibly

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > planetary position of some king in his own period,

and

> > that is

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > > Ramayana is a mere literary text, and NOT a divine

one.

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > If some parts of it seems to be confusing,

> > > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it

> > may

> > > > > better to

> > > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into

the

> > subject.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > I agree - but is it not that these discussions itself

> > is

> > > > > part of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > investigations into the subject?

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions

> > regarding

> > > > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna.

If

> > > > > possible

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > may be a good idea to compare these horoscope-

> > descriptions

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > similar descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Yes, I agree - and our field is wast -

> > > > > > > > Nirayana Astrology - Rishi Horas & Tantric texts

> > > > > > > > Sayana/Tropical Astrolology - Vedic literature,

Epics,

> > > > > Puranas

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > There is lot of unprocessed, non-scrutinized data

> > around, and

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > do much; though our studies - whether the conclusions

> > agree

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > popular notions and beliefs or not.

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of

the

> > birth

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen

this

> > > > > description

> > > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from

Ramayana

> > with

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are

there

> > > > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and

> > relevant

> > > > > > > information.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > I agree - quote and proceed. But remember one thing -

> > our

> > > > > major

> > > > > > > > concern in these discussions is 'Astrology in Valmiki

> > > > > Ramayana'

> > > > > > > (and

> > > > > > > > not merely the horoscope of Rama), and let us not

forget

> > the

> > > > > main

> > > > > > > area

> > > > > > > > of study, while dealing with diversions. At the end

of

> > our

> > > > > study,

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > sure some useful and systematic material should come

> > up. We

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > preserve and present it - as a background for further

> > > > > > > investigations

> > > > > > > > into other areas. :=)

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology@ .

com, " Finn

> > Wandahl "

> > > > > > > > <finn.wandahl@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Sreenadh & Mr. Kaul,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Perhaps one should not draw too hasty conclusions

> > regarding

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > origin

> > > > > > > > > of the Ramayana. If some parts of it seems to be

> > confusing,

> > > > > > > > > anachronistic, interpolated or manipulated, then it

> > may

> > > > > better to

> > > > > > > > > simply wait and make further investigations into

the

> > subject.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You have come up with some relevant questions

> > regarding

> > > > > > > Ramayana's

> > > > > > > > > description of the horoscopes of Rama and Krishna.

If

> > > > > possible

> > > > > > > it may

> > > > > > > > > be a good idea to compare these horoscope-descripti

ons

> > to

> > > > > similar

> > > > > > > > > descriptions from other texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Garga Samhita gives a detailed description of

the

> > birth

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > horoscopes of both Rama and Krishna. I have seen

this

> > > > > description

> > > > > > > > > myself. Why not compare the description from

Ramayana

> > with

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > given in Garga Samhita? Are they similar or are

there

> > > > > > > differences?

> > > > > > > > > This may actually provide us with some new and

> > relevant

> > > > > > > information.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > :-)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Finn

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- In

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Sreenadh "

> > > > > > > > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Kaul ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must

admit

> > that

> > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

> > later day

> > > > > > > > > > > interpolations

> > > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > > Then why don't with a better spirit accept that

> > the

> > > > > whole

> > > > > > > ramayana

> > > > > > > > > > itself is a made up text created between 2nd BC

and

> > 2

> > > > > AD?

> > > > > > > With the

> > > > > > > > > > numerous dereference to Buddha & Jain religions,

> > > > > Ardhasastra

> > > > > > > (of

> > > > > > > > > > Vishnugupta) etc and other numerous facts, I

believe

> > that

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > is clear

> > > > > > > > > > that it is a text created between 2 BC and 2nd AD

> > for

> > > > > sure -

> > > > > > > or better

> > > > > > > > > > in 2AD in Sunga period itself.

> > > > > > > > > > There is no wonder that the astrological

reference

> > in

> > > > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > > > utterly wrong and seems to be made up and in the

> > line of

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Animal mass murder yagas and many ugly

> > superstitions.

> > > > > Actually

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > only can be expected from such a text that is NOT

AT

> > ALL

> > > > > > > written by

> > > > > > > > > > sage Valmiki, but possibly by some stupid

brahmins

> > of

> > > > > sunga

> > > > > > > period.

> > > > > > > > > > What else do you think can be expected from such

a

> > text?!!

> > > > > > > > > > So I will request you to better accept the fact

> > that -

> > > > > The

> > > > > > > whole

> > > > > > > > > > Ramayana itself is a made up text - a text

created

> > with a

> > > > > > > purpose -

> > > > > > > > > > created between 2nd century BC and 2nd century

AD.

> > Even the

> > > > > > > > > > astronomical references in it is going in the

same

> > > > > direction.

> > > > > > > If there

> > > > > > > > > > WAS a Valmiki Ramayana prior to the currently

> > available

> > > > > one (as

> > > > > > > > > > referenced in Mahabharata) , then that text is

buried

> > in

> > > > > dept

> > > > > > > by the

> > > > > > > > > > political and religious fanatics who had a

purpose

> > and

> > > > > wanted

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > project brahmanic and vedic prejudices even by

> > calling

> > > > > Buddha

> > > > > > > a thief

> > > > > > > > > > and mass murdering Buddists. It was the hall make

of

> > that

> > > > > era

> > > > > > > (BC 200

> > > > > > > > > > to AD 200), and evident from many other literary

> > works as

> > > > > > > well.

> > > > > > > > > > So instead of going against astrologers - how

> > about

> > > > > going

> > > > > > > against

> > > > > > > > > > and start cursing - the corrupters of scriptures

who

> > in a

> > > > > > > futile

> > > > > > > > > > effort to spread Animal killing, and brahmin

> > projecting,

> > > > > Yaga

> > > > > > > > > > services, - rewrote all the good old ancient

scripts

> > and

> > > > > even

> > > > > > > tried to

> > > > > > > > > > steel and accommodate even the non-vedic

> > astrological

> > > > > signs

> > > > > > > also into

> > > > > > > > > > scripts that propagated such vedic rituals? Isn't

it

> > that

> > > > > > > Ramayana is

> > > > > > > > > > also a clear proof of the same?

> > > > > > > > > > I believe - this would be more logically

> > acceptable

> > > > > path,

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > enough evidence in support.

> > > > > > > > > > Endnote: Ramayana is a made-up text. Not at all

> > > > > authentic.

> > > > > > > Giving it

> > > > > > > > > > importance more than a simple literary work is

> > ignorance.

> > > > > Rama

> > > > > > > is god

> > > > > > > > > > or not is irrelevant in an academic discussion of

a

> > made

> > > > > up

> > > > > > > text like

> > > > > > > > > > Ramayana. Ramayana is a text which is NOT written

by

> > > > > Valmiki

> > > > > > > for sure

> > > > > > > > > > - he cannot be such a corrupted, full of

partiality

> > and

> > > > > hatred

> > > > > > > > > > influenced, ignorant individual. Sage Valmiki was

a

> > great

> > > > > > > > > > knowledgeable sage as evident from Yoga Vasishta,

> > and

> > > > > > > ascribing the

> > > > > > > > > > authorship of a text like currently available

> > Ramayana on

> > > > > him

> > > > > > > is a

> > > > > > > > > > SIN, and an insult of that great sage.

> > > > > > > > > > I wil better adopt this line of thinking.

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Avtar

> > > > > > > Krishen Kaul "

> > > > > > > > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shri Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > > > > > > > <I request you to look in to the following

> > argument and

> > > > > > > > > > > possibilities ->

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand I reqeuswt all of you to

ponder

> > on the

> > > > > > > following

> > > > > > > > > > > facts, even if they are unpleasant:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1. The Valmiki Ramayana is supposed to be Aadi

> > Mahakavya

> > > > > > > i.e. the

> > > > > > > > > > > very first Mahakavya (Epic) of Indian history

and

> > > > > Maharshi

> > > > > > > Valamiki

> > > > > > > > > > > is known as Aadi Kavi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 2. The Mahabharata is a much later work.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Shri Rama is supposed to have incarnated

much

> > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Krishna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 4. Shri Krishna is supposed to have incarnaed

> > much

> > > > > earlier

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha period -- 14th century BCE

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > A few million dollar questions are:

> > > > > > > > > > > a) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or

Mangal

> > Shani

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > > in the VJ

> > > > > > > > > > > b) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis in the

> > > > > Mahabharata

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > c) We do not find any Mesha etc. Rashis or any

> > Mangal

> > > > > Shani

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > planets in any of the indigenous sidhantas

prior

> > to the

> > > > > > > Surya

> > > > > > > > > > > Sidhanta of the Pancha Sidhantika!

> > > > > > > > > > > The questions arising out of these facts are:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > i )How come we find the horoscopic details of

> > Bhagwan

> > > > > Rama,

> > > > > > > > Bharata,

> > > > > > > > > > > Shatruna and even Lakshamana in the Valmiki

> > Ramayana?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ii) How come in spite of the best efforts of

all

> > the

> > > > > > > astronomers

> > > > > > > > > > > nobody has been able to reconcile the

> > irreconcilable

> > > > > facts

> > > > > > > that if

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhagwan Rama was born in Sun in Mesha and Moon

in

> > > > > Karakta in

> > > > > > > > > > > Punarvasu nakshatra, it could never have been

> > Navmki

> > > > > tithi

> > > > > > > or vice-

> > > > > > > > > > > versa?

> > > > > > > > > > > iii) The sun could never be in Mesha -- whether

> > the so

> > > > > called

> > > > > > > > sayana

> > > > > > > > > > > or the so called nirayana --- if it was Madhu

Masa

> > i.e.

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > month of the Vasanta Ritu at the time of birth

of

> > > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > Rama.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > iv)The sun of the younger brothers could never

> > have been

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > Karkata

> > > > > > > > > > > if the sun of Bhagwan Rama was in Mesha or even

> > Mina!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, the more we try to reconcile

these

> > > > > > > irreconcilable

> > > > > > > > > > > facts, the more we will be making a laughing

stock

> > of

> > > > > > > ourselves!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The best option, therefore, is that we must

admit

> > that

> > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > > astrological combinations in the Ramayanas are

> > later day

> > > > > > > > > > > interpolations by some good for nothing

> > overzealous

> > > > > > > astrologers who

> > > > > > > > > > > did not know even this much of astronomy that

if

> > the sun

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > Bhagwan

> > > > > > > > > > > Rama was in Mesha (or even in Mina) it could

never

> > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > Karkata just after two days in the case of His

> > siblings!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT JUST FOR THIS FACT

THAT

> > WE DO

> > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > HAVE A

> > > > > > > > > > > HOROSCOPE OF BHAGWAN RAM, MY ESTEEM FOR HIM HAS

> > > > > INCREASED

> > > > > > > SINCE IT

> > > > > > > > > > > MEANS THAT HE WAS REALLY KARTUM AKARTUM ANYATHA

> > KARTUM

> > > > > > > SAMARTH AND

> > > > > > > > > > > NOT SUBJECT TO PLANETARY SUZARINITY!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > And the tail-piece of all this haranguing is

that

> > it

> > > > > means

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > that Rishis like Valmiki nad the Veda Vayasa

etc.

> > did not

> > > > > > > > believe in

> > > > > > > > > > > any pedictive gimmicks either.

> > > > > > > > > > > With regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > >

> >

Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows

Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!

>

>

>

> Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. To know

how, go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

>