Kuleera and other Rasi names & some general thoughts

[Guest guest]

Dear Kaul ji and Others,

A document discussing the meaning of Rasi names like Kriya, Tavuru, Jutuma, Kuleera etc in Indian and Greek context is uploaded in the files section. Hope that this would be helpful to many.

Kaul ji, look for the section on 'Kuleera' in that document and you will get necessary ancient Sanskrit Nikhandu references for the dual meaning of the word 'Kuleera' as Capricon and Cancer.

I think knowing a small bit of info not mentioned in that document also would be helpful to you. The Nirukti of the word 'Kuleera' is -

"Ku Vastushu Leeyate Eeryate iti Kuleera" meaning "The one which moves in dirt/mud". Note that this definition fits in well for both Crab and Crocodile. Since the above word 'Eeryate' has got double meaning the meaning of above definition could be - "The one which enjoys dirt/mud and acts like a fake saint (during prey catching)" as well. Note that this too fits in well with both Crab and Crocodile. Also note that both Cancer and Capricorn are assumed to be water lands with mud, dirt and water born plants. It is due to these very reasons that the word 'Kuleera' refers to and is used to denote both Cancer and Capricorn from ancient times. But of course it is true that the meaning of the word 'Kuleera' as 'Cancer' became more popular and in wide use as time passed by.

Hope this helps.

Note 1: Ignorant people may without proper reference and homework may hastily conclude that the words cannot mean something that they do not already know. But being a person who tries to do his homework well, you please don't resort to it.

Note 2: While dealing with ancient words and book, as far as possible we should depend on ancient dictionaries and references and not to modern ones. For example what do you think you will find if you are searching for the synonyms of Nakshatras like `Bahu', `Invoka', `Illvala', `Tishya' etc if searched in modern dictionaries? Also note that in indian context Sanskrit dictionaries are Nikhandus (like Amara kosha etc) and Nirukti dictionaries. Modern dictionaries are good – but note that –

 

They usually give importance to the use of those words in comparatively modern texts.

They note only deal with all possible words, and may not give exact or detailed contextual meanings of words related to more technical knowledge branches (like Ayurveda, Astrology, Music and so on). The major thing we can expect in modern dictionaries is the `general literary meaning of popular words'.

It is a known truth that `when we deal with a subject or text, it is more advisable to –

 

depend on that text itself and take corroborative references from that text itself

If the above not available – depend on other texts dealing with the same subject itself

If that too is not available depend on references that tally with the period of writing of that text (so that the meaning and context matches)

It we forget these basic lessons to be followed in any sincere research `aimed at deriving a logical and acceptable conclusion' then – only useless argumentation which will not lead to anywhere only can follow. So please abide by these well known and basic rules to sincere study.

We are note kids in knowledge who will state things in two lines with out even thinking about or referring to anything and then post a mail in two lines – useless mails without content and benefiting none – which you may see at times coming from many in this forum itself. Let us not resort to that path.

Also know the effort and hard work it takes to answer each mail in detail. So please have enough patience always. Which I will expect from you and you should expect from me – since both of us know that much hard work and homework is necessary behind each sincere and resourceful mail; whether it is of yours, mine, finn's, Arjun ji's, pradeeps and so on.

Regards,Sreenadh , "Sreenadh" <sreesog wrote:>> 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> > > > > > > > > , "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> > >> >>