Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,A)It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. These have been interpolated into the Ramayana. You might have noticed that I have mentioned only the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana, according to which the Sun just entered Aries, when Rama was born. Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . According to me these above two conditions have to be met in case of dating of the Ramayana.B)The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful

if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. Regards,Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,//> It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. // What is the base for this argument? What is the core login/reason behind? //> Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . ////> The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. // You can refer to a discussion regarding the same happened in this gruop itself. One of the mails posted by Chandrahari ji, addresses this issue in detail with references. Check this message: /message/4352 Regards,Sreenadh--- In , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > A)> It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. These have been interpolated into the Ramayana. You might have noticed that I have mentioned only the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana, according to which the Sun just entered Aries, when Rama was born. > > Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . > > According to me these above two conditions have to be met in case of dating of the Ramayana.> > B)> The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. > > Regards,> > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sreenadh sreesog > Monday, August 25, 2008 10:54:34 PM> Re: Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > //On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. //> The Horoscope given in Valmiki Ramayana is true for BC 157; The detailes of discussion happened regarding that in this group can be tracked from message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4292 > //Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata. //> This is NOT true. The mention of Ramayana events is present in Mahabharata and the mention of Mahabharata events are present in Ramayana. Thus based on this kind of reference we CANNOT reach any such conclusion. > Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > m, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > I agree with you in that different people have different ideas about the date of Valmiki's Ramayana, composed by the sage Valmiki. On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. Moreover this dating matches with the Yuga-time scale given in the Bhagawat purana and the Vishnu purana. The astro-scholar Avtar Kishen Kaulji could not understand the astronomical details given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana and I had quite some arguments with him on that sometime ago. But I do not wish to go into it now as a very great detailed discussion will be required for that. Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata.> > > > Regarding the date of the Mahabharata war, as obtained from the astronomical data given by Vedavyasa it is clear to me that it took place in the 32nd century BCE. Some knowledgeable astronomers goofed up the data given by Vedavyasa. For example Vedavyasa indicated that the Saturn was in Visakha and afflicted Rohini. To me it is clear that Saturn being in Visakha can afflict Rohini but astronomers, who do not believe in astrology, have interpreted it as that the Saturn must have been in Rohini to cause the affliction. They simply refuse to believe that Vedavyasa believed in astrology and mixed astrological data along with astronomical data, in spite of the fact that Vedavyasa mentioned about the omens in in the Mahabharata. . Because of this wrong interpretation the modern astronomers of today could not find the correct date of the Mahabharata. Some of them find it difficult to believe that two eclipses can occur separated by a Kshayapaksha of 13 days .> > They are also not aware that the tithi of the day is the tithi in which the Sun rises. Then some of them are not well-versed in Sanskrit. For example, in the Bhishma parva Vedavyasa gives the word "Tribhaagashesha' , which actually means "Tribhaaganaam shesha bhaaga", which means the last (part) of the the three parts, but the astronomers have given various meanings to this compound word, other than what it really means. This word is very important for identifying the paksha in which Bhishma died. Then there is one very reputed astronomer who says that Bhishma-Panchaka occurred when Bhishma was in the bed of arrows, whereas to my knowledge the Bhishma-Panchaka was from Kartiki-Ekadashi to Kartiki-Purnima and as the war started on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima it is clear that the Bhishma-Panchaka could not have been when Bhishma was on the bed of arrows.> > > > Thus the dating of the Mahabharata war is not an easy subject and cannot be discussed here and it will require a sizable book to be written on it with all these expalanations. May be some day I shall find some time to do that.> > > > The great sage Vedavyasa realised that at his time the Vedas and the scriptures became so extensive that they would not survive unless these are divided into different texts as it had become impossible for an individual disciple to memorise and master all the scriptures during his twelve years of stay in the gururkula. Because of the divisions made by Vedavyasa it became possible for the disciples to memorise and master the texts he and his guru had chosen and this way the oral transmission of larger texts could continue. However from the time of Mahabharata the larger puranas and the epics were gradually written down. However the Vedas continued to be transmitted orally till a late date. > > > > The mail has already become too long and I wish to conclude here as this subject is very interesting and one can go on and on.> > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Monday, August 25, 2008 2:22:48 AM> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > //As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana //> > I don't think that that Ramayana is an ancient text (The currently available text is possibly of AD 2nd/3rd century origin). Further there were numerous Vasishtas, since Vasishta was Guru parampara, a clan - Similar to Gargas (Gargs) and Parasaras and Kausikas. The ancient Rishi Kulas were like the Universities where the head teacher of the Kula holds the sage title (Such as Vasishta, Narada, Mandhavya, Chyevana or Ati or what ever that be). So we can not be much sure about the period of 'Vasishta' (considering as if it refers to ONLY ONE sage and lived in one period alone). > > //Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. //> > First, what was the period of Mahabharata is one controversial question. Second, from linguistic perspective the language used in Mahabharata is pretty evolved compared to that of Vedic language - and thus the currently available Mahabharata cannot be a text of Vedic period around BCE 3100. Thirdly we need to ensure, to whom the word Vedic Period refers to (Are we referring to Sindhu-Sarasvati ppl, or specifically to Kalibengan ppl and so on), since Vedic 'culture' is not much supported by archeological evidences. > > //Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponsible action.//> > I am of the opinion that we should allow criticism, because only when strong criticism is present people will search for more logical arguments, supportive evidence; it is said that those which are born in fire will not perish simple heat of sunlight. Thus let the arguments evolve with inner strength - and for that criticism is necessary, and it should be appreciated.> > Love and regards,> > Sreeandh> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > >> > > Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. This also means that they must have been transcribed many times in the past but that does not reduce their antiquity. In fact the book gives an account of what happened much before the Mahabharata times and this means the facts mentioned in it are very much older than 5000 years. As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana the mentioned events should have occurred around 9000 years ago. Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponslibe action.> > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > SKB> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > koenraad_elst koenraad.elst@ ...> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:35:08 AM> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > > > > > I wish to add that Xerxes, the successor of Darius-I, the great > > > Archimedian emperor, did defeat the Greeks and occupy Greece. > > > However that occupation was short and it lasted for one year only. It > > > is believed by some that Alexander's expedition against the > > > Archimedian empire was to avenge that defeat<> > > > > > Because Xerxes destroyed Greek temples, Alexander, who otherwise > > > respected all gods and temples of all peoples, extinguished many > > > Zoroastrian sacred fires in Iran.> > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Yavanas one finds that according to the Harivamsha > > > (the appendix to the Mahabharata) the Yavanas were Kshatriyas, who > > > were expelled from his kingdom by the king Sagar, on the advice of > > > the sage Vasishtha, as they revolted. So they were very much of > > > Indian origin.> > > >> > > > > > That's a pretty late text, early Christian centuries, when the word > > > Yavana was already several centuries old and may have begun losing > > > its original specific meaning. It is unclear what the said passage > > > exactly refers to. If the Vedic Vasishtha is meant, then clearly > > > these Yavans are not the Greeks. unless they were the Greeks of the > > > Vedic era, the era of the disintegration of the PIE peoples and their > > > spread from South Asia westward, who were certainly not known as > > > Ionians/Yavanas yet. It is highly doubtful the tha Alexandrine Yavans > > > would have remembered anything about ndian origins two millennia > > > earlier. At any rate no Greek text ever refers to such memory.> > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:40:45 AM> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of > > > Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > Ionia was a part of the Achaemenid empire, the rest of> > > > Greece was not, so any Greeks resetlled to the east of the empire> > > > would have been Ionians. That makes it likely the word dates from> > > > before Alexander.> > > > (http://tech. groups.. com IndiaArchaeology /message/ > > > 7520)> > > > ====> > > > > * We also know that the word 'Yavana' as per indian > > > astrological sources dates back even to BC 1400!<> > > > > > Do we really? What source is that?> > > > > > > How come indian people know about Ionia and Ionians much prior to > > > Greeks?! If not to the Alexandrian Greeks to whom this word refer > > > to? Which culture and cultural heritage is referred to?!<> > > > > > Alexander was resisted by a Greek population in Afganistan. he told > > > them not to sue for peace on any terms, as he was determined to kill > > > them to the last; which he proceeded to do. Those were the pre-> > > Alexandrine Ionians resettled by the Achaemenids since ca. 500 BC.> > > > > > > * They spoke the Anatolian languages are a group of extinct > > > Indo-European languages, which were spoken in Asia Minor , the best > > > attested of them being the Hittite language. The Anatolian branch is > > > generally considered the earliest to split off the Proto-Indo-> > > European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite > > > or "Middle PIE", typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is > > > assumed. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Anatolian_ languages <> > > > > > Some Ionians may have been Hittites or Luwains or other non-IEs who > > > adopted the newly dominant language. But in general, Ionians were > > > simply Greek settles in Ionia. As Ionians, they spoke Greek, not > > > Anatolian.> > > > > > > So in short the Yavanas are NOT Greeks, but the ancient > > > people lived in Smyrna BEFORE the barbarian Alexandrian/ Macedonian > > > Greeks destroyed their culture!<> > > > > > They are Greeks, e.g. the philosophers Thales and Herokleitos. And > > > Alexander didn't destroy their culture. Some of their cities had been > > > destroyed by the Persians, but generally they too left their culture > > > alone.> > > > > > > Ionians appear in Indic literature and documents as Yavana and > > > Yona.<> > > > > > Yes.> > > > > > >Prior to then, the Yavanas appear in the Vedas with reference to the > > > Vedic period, which could be as early as the 2nd or 3rd millennium > > > BC.<> > > > > > Do they really?!> > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > KE> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,1)Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards.2)In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata.3) I read in a Buddhist text that Lord Buddha had claimed that he was a descendent of Rama of the Ikshaku clan but I do not recall that reference now. Our Buddhist friends in this forum may remember.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil ji, //> 1)> Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards.// That is good point - I would try to verify it.//> 2)> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata.//What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!! //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! //The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata.// Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? //Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata.// "Currently available Ramayana" is definitely a text written AFTER Mahabharata, evident from the fact that Ramayana mentions several things that ranges even upto 9th century AD! This means that the additions to Ramayana continued to happen till 9th century AD; The Horoscope of Rama added to original Ramayana could be a 2nd Century AD addition (referring to a BC 157 planettary combination). Mahabharata is a text of higher plane because the knowledge it shares is in tune with the Vedic past. That is why Mahabharata is known as the 5th Veda. This vast amount of secret knowledge present in Mahabharata is evident from the fact that the author of this text tells us "What ever you find in other books, you will find here as well; but what ever you find here, you may not find elsewhere!"; and also from the words "This text (Mahabharata) contains 1800 SECRET slokas (hiding valuable knowledge)". Thus if there is any text in which we should search for the Davinchi- code (The key) to reveal and understand the ancient knowledge (including the Vedic as well as Non-vedic streams), then that is none but Mahabharata!! (There are numerous examples for this) This is possible only for an ancient text that understands Vedic tradition and is ancient enough. If Mahabharata is like a great Kingdom, then Ramayana is just like a rural distinct - there is no comparison between the two - this is my opinion. Of course it is true that due to Introducing Rama as God (by the interpolated slokas as well due to the later day texts like Ramacharitamanasa and Adhyatma Ramayana) ramayna became a religious text and that is the reason for its popularity; otherwise who can imagine that this average text with numerous problems will be compared with the great epic Mahabharata with a treasure source of knowledge to share?!! Note: Sorry, I never intended to hurt anyone’s religious feelings - but just expressing my opinion. Locating and deciphering the 1800 secret quotes provided by Mahabharata, could provide a great break through in understanding the ancient indian knowledge in its true perspective. Due to this reason, I love the text Mahabharata, but I do not have this kind of regard for Ramayana. Also I am neither a religious fanatic nor a cultural fanatic. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > 1)> Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards.> > 2)> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata.> > 3) I read in a Buddhist text that Lord Buddha had claimed that he was a descendent of Rama of the Ikshaku clan but I do not recall that reference now. Our Buddhist friends in this forum may remember.> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog > Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:05:57 AM> Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,> //> It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. //> What is the base for this argument? What is the core login/reason behind? > //> Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . //> //> The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. //> You can refer to a discussion regarding the same happened in this gruop itself. One of the mails posted by Chandrahari ji, addresses this issue in detail with references. > Check this message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4352 > Regards,> Sreenadh> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > A)> > It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. These have been interpolated into the Ramayana. You might have noticed that I have mentioned only the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana, according to which the Sun just entered Aries, when Rama was born. > > > > Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . > > > > According to me these above two conditions have to be met in case of dating of the Ramayana.> > > > B)> > The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. > > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Monday, August 25, 2008 10:54:34 PM> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > //On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. //> > The Horoscope given in Valmiki Ramayana is true for BC 157; The detailes of discussion happened regarding that in this group can be tracked from message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4292 > > //Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata. //> > This is NOT true. The mention of Ramayana events is present in Mahabharata and the mention of Mahabharata events are present in Ramayana. Thus based on this kind of reference we CANNOT reach any such conclusion. > > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> > > > m, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > >> > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > > > I agree with you in that different people have different ideas about the date of Valmiki's Ramayana, composed by the sage Valmiki. On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. Moreover this dating matches with the Yuga-time scale given in the Bhagawat purana and the Vishnu purana. The astro-scholar Avtar Kishen Kaulji could not understand the astronomical details given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana and I had quite some arguments with him on that sometime ago. But I do not wish to go into it now as a very great detailed discussion will be required for that. Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata.> > > > > > Regarding the date of the Mahabharata war, as obtained from the astronomical data given by Vedavyasa it is clear to me that it took place in the 32nd century BCE. Some knowledgeable astronomers goofed up the data given by Vedavyasa. For example Vedavyasa indicated that the Saturn was in Visakha and afflicted Rohini. To me it is clear that Saturn being in Visakha can afflict Rohini but astronomers, who do not believe in astrology, have interpreted it as that the Saturn must have been in Rohini to cause the affliction. They simply refuse to believe that Vedavyasa believed in astrology and mixed astrological data along with astronomical data, in spite of the fact that Vedavyasa mentioned about the omens in in the Mahabharata. . Because of this wrong interpretation the modern astronomers of today could not find the correct date of the Mahabharata. Some of them find it difficult to believe that two eclipses can occur separated by a Kshayapaksha of 13 days> .> > > They are also not aware that the tithi of the day is the tithi in which the Sun rises. Then some of them are not well-versed in Sanskrit. For example, in the Bhishma parva Vedavyasa gives the word "Tribhaagashesha' , which actually means "Tribhaaganaam shesha bhaaga", which means the last (part) of the the three parts, but the astronomers have given various meanings to this compound word, other than what it really means. This word is very important for identifying the paksha in which Bhishma died. Then there is one very reputed astronomer who says that Bhishma-Panchaka occurred when Bhishma was in the bed of arrows, whereas to my knowledge the Bhishma-Panchaka was from Kartiki-Ekadashi to Kartiki-Purnima and as the war started on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima it is clear that the Bhishma-Panchaka could not have been when Bhishma was on the bed of arrows.> > > > > > Thus the dating of the Mahabharata war is not an easy subject and cannot be discussed here and it will require a sizable book to be written on it with all these expalanations. May be some day I shall find some time to do that.> > > > > > The great sage Vedavyasa realised that at his time the Vedas and the scriptures became so extensive that they would not survive unless these are divided into different texts as it had become impossible for an individual disciple to memorise and master all the scriptures during his twelve years of stay in the gururkula. Because of the divisions made by Vedavyasa it became possible for the disciples to memorise and master the texts he and his guru had chosen and this way the oral transmission of larger texts could continue. However from the time of Mahabharata the larger puranas and the epics were gradually written down. However the Vedas continued to be transmitted orally till a late date. > > > > > > The mail has already become too long and I wish to conclude here as this subject is very interesting and one can go on and on.> > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Monday, August 25, 2008 2:22:48 AM> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > //As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana //> > > I don't think that that Ramayana is an ancient text (The currently available text is possibly of AD 2nd/3rd century origin). Further there were numerous Vasishtas, since Vasishta was Guru parampara, a clan - Similar to Gargas (Gargs) and Parasaras and Kausikas. The ancient Rishi Kulas were like the Universities where the head teacher of the Kula holds the sage title (Such as Vasishta, Narada, Mandhavya, Chyevana or Ati or what ever that be). So we can not be much sure about the period of 'Vasishta' (considering as if it refers to ONLY ONE sage and lived in one period alone). > > > //Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. //> > > First, what was the period of Mahabharata is one controversial question. Second, from linguistic perspective the language used in Mahabharata is pretty evolved compared to that of Vedic language - and thus the currently available Mahabharata cannot be a text of Vedic period around BCE 3100. Thirdly we need to ensure, to whom the word Vedic Period refers to (Are we referring to Sindhu-Sarasvati ppl, or specifically to Kalibengan ppl and so on), since Vedic 'culture' is not much supported by archeological evidences. > > > //Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponsible action.//> > > I am of the opinion that we should allow criticism, because only when strong criticism is present people will search for more logical arguments, supportive evidence; it is said that those which are born in fire will not perish simple heat of sunlight. Thus let the arguments evolve with inner strength - and for that criticism is necessary, and it should be appreciated.> > > Love and regards,> > > Sreeandh> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > > >> > > > Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. This also means that they must have been transcribed many times in the past but that does not reduce their antiquity. In fact the book gives an account of what happened much before the Mahabharata times and this means the facts mentioned in it are very much older than 5000 years. As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana the mentioned events should have occurred around 9000 years ago. Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponslibe action.> > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > SKB> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > koenraad_elst koenraad.elst@ ...> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:35:08 AM> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > > > > > > > I wish to add that Xerxes, the successor of Darius-I, the great > > > > Archimedian emperor, did defeat the Greeks and occupy Greece. > > > > However that occupation was short and it lasted for one year only. It > > > > is believed by some that Alexander's expedition against the > > > > Archimedian empire was to avenge that defeat<> > > > > > > > Because Xerxes destroyed Greek temples, Alexander, who otherwise > > > > respected all gods and temples of all peoples, extinguished many > > > > Zoroastrian sacred fires in Iran.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Yavanas one finds that according to the Harivamsha > > > > (the appendix to the Mahabharata) the Yavanas were Kshatriyas, who > > > > were expelled from his kingdom by the king Sagar, on the advice of > > > > the sage Vasishtha, as they revolted. So they were very much of > > > > Indian origin.> > > > >> > > > > > > > That's a pretty late text, early Christian centuries, when the word > > > > Yavana was already several centuries old and may have begun losing > > > > its original specific meaning. It is unclear what the said passage > > > > exactly refers to. If the Vedic Vasishtha is meant, then clearly > > > > these Yavans are not the Greeks. unless they were the Greeks of the > > > > Vedic era, the era of the disintegration of the PIE peoples and their > > > > spread from South Asia westward, who were certainly not known as > > > > Ionians/Yavanas yet. It is highly doubtful the tha Alexandrine Yavans > > > > would have remembered anything about ndian origins two millennia > > > > earlier. At any rate no Greek text ever refers to such memory.> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ >> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:40:45 AM> > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of > > > > Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > Ionia was a part of the Achaemenid empire, the rest of> > > > > Greece was not, so any Greeks resetlled to the east of the empire> > > > > would have been Ionians. That makes it likely the word dates from> > > > > before Alexander.> > > > > (http://tech. groups.. com IndiaArchaeology /message/ > > > > 7520)> > > > > ====> > > > > > * We also know that the word 'Yavana' as per indian > > > > astrological sources dates back even to BC 1400!<> > > > > > > > Do we really? What source is that?> > > > > > > > > How come indian people know about Ionia and Ionians much prior to > > > > Greeks?! If not to the Alexandrian Greeks to whom this word refer > > > > to? Which culture and cultural heritage is referred to?!<> > > > > > > > Alexander was resisted by a Greek population in Afganistan. he told > > > > them not to sue for peace on any terms, as he was determined to kill > > > > them to the last; which he proceeded to do. Those were the pre-> > > > Alexandrine Ionians resettled by the Achaemenids since ca. 500 BC.> > > > > > > > > * They spoke the Anatolian languages are a group of extinct > > > > Indo-European languages, which were spoken in Asia Minor , the best > > > > attested of them being the Hittite language. The Anatolian branch is > > > > generally considered the earliest to split off the Proto-Indo-> > > > European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite > > > > or "Middle PIE", typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is > > > > assumed. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Anatolian_ languages <> > > > > > > > Some Ionians may have been Hittites or Luwains or other non-IEs who > > > > adopted the newly dominant language. But in general, Ionians were > > > > simply Greek settles in Ionia. As Ionians, they spoke Greek, not > > > > Anatolian.> > > > > > > > > So in short the Yavanas are NOT Greeks, but the ancient > > > > people lived in Smyrna BEFORE the barbarian Alexandrian/ Macedonian > > > > Greeks destroyed their culture!<> > > > > > > > They are Greeks, e.g. the philosophers Thales and Herokleitos. And > > > > Alexander didn't destroy their culture. Some of their cities had been > > > > destroyed by the Persians, but generally they too left their culture > > > > alone.> > > > > > > > > Ionians appear in Indic literature and documents as Yavana and > > > > Yona.<> > > > > > > > Yes.> > > > > > > > >Prior to then, the Yavanas appear in the Vedas with reference to the > > > > Vedic period, which could be as early as the 2nd or 3rd millennium > > > > BC.<> > > > > > > > Do they really?!> > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > KE> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,<<<

In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are

obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to

find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove

that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!! //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! >>>----------->Sorry, you have rightly noticed the goof-up. In Ramayana there is no mention of the personalities of the Mahabharata. This is not to exclude any namesakes. <<< The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? >>>With your permission I shall rephrase

what I wanted to say. If some events are before both the Ramayana and mahabharata then obviously they can be referred to in both the epics.Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.Best regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaSreenadh <sreesogTo:

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:17:24 PM Re:Date of Ramayana and MahabharataDear Sunil ji, //> 1)> Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards./ / That is good point - I would try to verify it.//> 2)> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the

Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!! //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! //The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? //Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. // "Currently available Ramayana" is definitely a text written AFTER Mahabharata, evident from the fact that Ramayana mentions several things that ranges even upto 9th century AD! This means that the additions to Ramayana continued

to happen till 9th century AD; The Horoscope of Rama added to original Ramayana could be a 2nd Century AD addition (referring to a BC 157 planettary combination) . Mahabharata is a text of higher plane because the knowledge it shares is in tune with the Vedic past. That is why Mahabharata is known as the 5th Veda. This vast amount of secret knowledge present in Mahabharata is evident from the fact that the author of this text tells us "What ever you find in other books, you will find here as well; but what ever you find here, you may not find elsewhere!"; and also from the words "This text (Mahabharata) contains 1800 SECRET slokas (hiding valuable knowledge)". Thus if there is any text in which we should search for the Davinchi- code (The key) to reveal and understand the ancient knowledge (including the Vedic as well as Non-vedic streams), then that is none but Mahabharata! ! (There

are numerous examples for this) This is possible only for an ancient text that understands Vedic tradition and is ancient enough. If Mahabharata is like a great Kingdom, then Ramayana is just like a rural distinct - there is no comparison between the two - this is my opinion. Of course it is true that due to Introducing Rama as God (by the interpolated slokas as well due to the later day texts like Ramacharitamanasa and Adhyatma Ramayana) ramayna became a religious text and that is the reason for its popularity; otherwise who can imagine that this average text with numerous problems will be compared with the great epic Mahabharata with a treasure source of knowledge to share?!! Note: Sorry, I never intended to hurt anyone’s religious feelings - but just expressing my opinion. Locating and deciphering the 1800 secret quotes

provided by Mahabharata, could provide a great break through in understanding the ancient indian knowledge in its true perspective. Due to this reason, I love the text Mahabharata, but I do not have this kind of regard for Ramayana. Also I am neither a religious fanatic nor a cultural fanatic. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > 1)> Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards.> > 2)> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that

Ramayana was after Mahabharata.> > 3) I read in a Buddhist text that Lord Buddha had claimed that he was a descendent of Rama of the Ikshaku clan but I do not recall that reference now. Our Buddhist friends in this forum may remember.> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog ancient_indian_ astrology> Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:05:57 AM> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,> //> It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. //> What is the base for this argument? What is the core login/reason behind? > //> Secondly the

Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . //> //> The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. //> You can refer to a discussion regarding the same happened in this gruop itself. One of the mails posted by Chandrahari ji, addresses this issue in detail with references. > Check this message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4352 > Regards,> Sreenadh> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > A)> > It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The

Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. These have been interpolated into the Ramayana. You might have noticed that I have mentioned only the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana, according to which the Sun just entered Aries, when Rama was born. > > > > Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . > > > > According to me these above two conditions have to be met in case of dating of the Ramayana.> > > > B)> > The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. > > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message

----> > Sreenadh sreesog@> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Monday, August 25, 2008 10:54:34 PM> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > //On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. //> > The Horoscope given in Valmiki Ramayana is true for BC 157; The detailes of discussion happened regarding that in this group can be tracked from message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4292 > > //Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the

events of the Mahabharata. //> > This is NOT true. The mention of Ramayana events is present in Mahabharata and the mention of Mahabharata events are present in Ramayana. Thus based on this kind of reference we CANNOT reach any such conclusion. > > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> > > > m, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > >> > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > > > I agree with you in that different people have different ideas about the date of Valmiki's Ramayana, composed by the sage Valmiki. On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. Moreover this dating matches with the Yuga-time scale given in the Bhagawat purana and the Vishnu purana. The astro-scholar

Avtar Kishen Kaulji could not understand the astronomical details given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana and I had quite some arguments with him on that sometime ago. But I do not wish to go into it now as a very great detailed discussion will be required for that. Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata.> > > > > > Regarding the date of the Mahabharata war, as obtained from the astronomical data given by Vedavyasa it is clear to me that it took place in the 32nd century BCE. Some knowledgeable astronomers goofed up the data given by Vedavyasa. For example Vedavyasa indicated that the Saturn was in Visakha and afflicted Rohini. To me it is clear that Saturn being in Visakha can afflict Rohini but astronomers, who do not believe in astrology, have interpreted it as that the Saturn must

have been in Rohini to cause the affliction. They simply refuse to believe that Vedavyasa believed in astrology and mixed astrological data along with astronomical data, in spite of the fact that Vedavyasa mentioned about the omens in in the Mahabharata. . Because of this wrong interpretation the modern astronomers of today could not find the correct date of the Mahabharata. Some of them find it difficult to believe that two eclipses can occur separated by a Kshayapaksha of 13 days> .> > > They are also not aware that the tithi of the day is the tithi in which the Sun rises. Then some of them are not well-versed in Sanskrit. For example, in the Bhishma parva Vedavyasa gives the word "Tribhaagashesha' , which actually means "Tribhaaganaam shesha bhaaga", which means the last (part) of the the three parts, but the astronomers have given various meanings to this compound word, other than what it really means. This word is very important

for identifying the paksha in which Bhishma died. Then there is one very reputed astronomer who says that Bhishma-Panchaka occurred when Bhishma was in the bed of arrows, whereas to my knowledge the Bhishma-Panchaka was from Kartiki-Ekadashi to Kartiki-Purnima and as the war started on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima it is clear that the Bhishma-Panchaka could not have been when Bhishma was on the bed of arrows.> > > > > > Thus the dating of the Mahabharata war is not an easy subject and cannot be discussed here and it will require a sizable book to be written on it with all these expalanations. May be some day I shall find some time to do that.> > > > > > The great sage Vedavyasa realised that at his time the Vedas and the scriptures became so extensive that they would not survive unless these are divided into different texts as it had become impossible for an individual disciple to memorise

and master all the scriptures during his twelve years of stay in the gururkula. Because of the divisions made by Vedavyasa it became possible for the disciples to memorise and master the texts he and his guru had chosen and this way the oral transmission of larger texts could continue. However from the time of Mahabharata the larger puranas and the epics were gradually written down. However the Vedas continued to be transmitted orally till a late date. > > > > > > The mail has already become too long and I wish to conclude here as this subject is very interesting and one can go on and on.> > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > ancient_indian_

astrology> > > Monday, August 25, 2008 2:22:48 AM> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > //As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana //> > > I don't think that that Ramayana is an ancient text (The currently available text is possibly of AD 2nd/3rd century origin). Further there were numerous Vasishtas, since Vasishta was Guru parampara, a clan - Similar to Gargas (Gargs) and Parasaras and Kausikas. The ancient Rishi Kulas were like the Universities where the head teacher of the Kula holds the sage title (Such as Vasishta, Narada, Mandhavya, Chyevana or Ati or what ever that be). So we can not be much sure about the period of 'Vasishta' (considering as if it refers to ONLY ONE sage and lived in one period alone). >

> > //Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. //> > > First, what was the period of Mahabharata is one controversial question. Second, from linguistic perspective the language used in Mahabharata is pretty evolved compared to that of Vedic language - and thus the currently available Mahabharata cannot be a text of Vedic period around BCE 3100. Thirdly we need to ensure, to whom the word Vedic Period refers to (Are we referring to Sindhu-Sarasvati ppl, or specifically to Kalibengan ppl and so on), since Vedic 'culture' is not much supported by archeological evidences. > > > //Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponsible action.//> > > I am of the opinion that we should

allow criticism, because only when strong criticism is present people will search for more logical arguments, supportive evidence; it is said that those which are born in fire will not perish simple heat of sunlight. Thus let the arguments evolve with inner strength - and for that criticism is necessary, and it should be appreciated.> > > Love and regards,> > > Sreeandh> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > > >> > > > Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. This also means that they must have been transcribed many times in the past but that does not reduce their antiquity. In fact the book gives an account of what happened much before the Mahabharata times and this means the facts mentioned in it are

very much older than 5000 years. As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana the mentioned events should have occurred around 9000 years ago. Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponslibe action.> > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > SKB> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > koenraad_elst koenraad.elst@ ...> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:35:08 AM> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > >

> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > > > > > > > I wish to add that Xerxes, the successor of Darius-I, the great > > > > Archimedian emperor, did defeat the Greeks and occupy Greece. > > > > However that occupation was short and it lasted for one year only. It > > > > is believed by some that Alexander's expedition against the > > > > Archimedian empire was to avenge that defeat<> > > > > > > > Because Xerxes destroyed Greek temples, Alexander, who otherwise > > > > respected all gods and temples of all peoples, extinguished many > > > > Zoroastrian sacred fires in Iran.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Yavanas one

finds that according to the Harivamsha > > > > (the appendix to the Mahabharata) the Yavanas were Kshatriyas, who > > > > were expelled from his kingdom by the king Sagar, on the advice of > > > > the sage Vasishtha, as they revolted. So they were very much of > > > > Indian origin.> > > > >> > > > > > > > That's a pretty late text, early Christian centuries, when the word > > > > Yavana was already several centuries old and may have begun losing > > > > its original specific meaning. It is unclear what the said passage > > > > exactly refers to. If the Vedic Vasishtha is meant, then clearly > > > > these Yavans are not the Greeks. unless they were the Greeks of the > > > > Vedic era, the era of the disintegration of the PIE peoples and their > > >

> spread from South Asia westward, who were certainly not known as > > > > Ionians/Yavanas yet. It is highly doubtful the tha Alexandrine Yavans > > > > would have remembered anything about ndian origins two millennia > > > > earlier. At any rate no Greek text ever refers to such memory.> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ >> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:40:45 AM> > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of > > > > Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > Ionia was a part of the Achaemenid empire, the rest of> > > > > Greece was not, so any Greeks resetlled to the east of the empire> > > > > would have been

Ionians. That makes it likely the word dates from> > > > > before Alexander.> > > > > (http://tech. groups.. com IndiaArchaeology /message/ > > > > 7520)> > > > > ====> > > > > > * We also know that the word 'Yavana' as per indian > > > > astrological sources dates back even to BC 1400!<> > > > > > > > Do we really? What source is that?> > > > > > > > > How come indian people know about Ionia and Ionians much prior to > > > > Greeks?! If not to the Alexandrian Greeks to whom this word refer > > > > to? Which culture and cultural heritage is referred to?!<> > > > > > > > Alexander was resisted by a Greek population in Afganistan. he told > > > > them not to sue for peace on any

terms, as he was determined to kill > > > > them to the last; which he proceeded to do. Those were the pre-> > > > Alexandrine Ionians resettled by the Achaemenids since ca. 500 BC.> > > > > > > > > * They spoke the Anatolian languages are a group of extinct > > > > Indo-European languages, which were spoken in Asia Minor , the best > > > > attested of them being the Hittite language. The Anatolian branch is > > > > generally considered the earliest to split off the Proto-Indo-> > > > European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite > > > > or "Middle PIE", typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is > > > > assumed. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Anatolian_ languages <> > > > > > > > Some Ionians may have been Hittites or Luwains or

other non-IEs who > > > > adopted the newly dominant language. But in general, Ionians were > > > > simply Greek settles in Ionia. As Ionians, they spoke Greek, not > > > > Anatolian.> > > > > > > > > So in short the Yavanas are NOT Greeks, but the ancient > > > > people lived in Smyrna BEFORE the barbarian Alexandrian/ Macedonian > > > > Greeks destroyed their culture!<> > > > > > > > They are Greeks, e.g. the philosophers Thales and Herokleitos. And > > > > Alexander didn't destroy their culture. Some of their cities had been > > > > destroyed by the Persians, but generally they too left their culture > > > > alone.> > > > > > > > > Ionians appear in Indic literature and documents as Yavana and > > > >

Yona.<> > > > > > > > Yes.> > > > > > > > >Prior to then, the Yavanas appear in the Vedas with reference to the > > > > Vedic period, which could be as early as the 2nd or 3rd millennium > > > > BC.<> > > > > > > > Do they really?!> > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > KE> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, //Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.// Why should we think that Rama lived during BC 157?!! The point I was trying to convey was that the Horoscope given in Ramayana (as that of Rama) is of BC 157, and this points to the fact that the book Ramaya got totally modified and numerous portions (like this horoscope; and possibly the Balakanda and Uttarakanda portions etc) added to the 'Original' text. A reference to BC 157 horoscope proves it as a sure fact that the original Ramayana CERTAINLY got re-written AFTER BC 157 (i.e. I suppose around AD 200) and the currently available Ramayana is this MODIFIED TEXT. Since Mahabharata refers to Ramayana, and also because numerous other ancient Vedic texts refers to Ramayana story, the following possibilities emerge - 1) There was an original Ramayana text available (even though that text is NOT the currently available Ramayana) 2) It is also possible that after the current ramayana become popular (as a religious text), slokas are interpolated into the ancient texts like Mahabharata (in an effort to prove that Ramayana is older). Instead of assuming that one of these two possibilities might have happened, it might be more natural and correct to assume that both the above things happened. Thus we can assume that - * There was an original Ramayana available from ancient times which is no more available now. The core story of that ancient text might have many similarities with the current one. (If this is true - some body should have to do a sincere research to reveal the original story of Ramayana based on stray references from Vedic literature and Mahabharata) * Currently available Ramayana is an ancient text modified through centuries; almost totally modified between BC 157 - AD 250 and currently it is a text with numerous interpolations and additions. * Since Rama is just a imaginary character mentioned in a literary text, there is no point in considering him as a historical figure. There is no point in trying to fix a period of Rama. The Horoscope of Rama DOES NOT reflect the period of rama but only the the period after which the ancient text Ramayana got corrupted and almost totally modified. * The popularity of Ramayana as a religious text AFTER this modification (between BC 157 - AD 200), caused the corruption of many other texts as well, and also the distortion of history. Because - 1) Pseudo scholars started interpolating slokas to age old/ancient texts like Mahabharata. 2) Places were named after the place names given in Ramayana and this caused much confusion regarding geography and story mentioned in Ramaya and the 'actual' location mentioned by the author in his book. (Please note that the events mentioned in Ramaya NEVER took place because, Ramayana is modified literary text only and NOT a book of history). Note: Considering literary texts like a tertiary resource in the study of history is OK, but NOT as primary or secondary evidence. Even the study of literary history should consider the real/natural/human possibilities of corruption and interpolation. Where we stand and what we are speaking about is not a thing to forget. Based on tertiary evidence like simple literary books and trying to IMAGINE history out of it AS IF we are dealing with real books of history is NOT the right track to follow, and does not lead anywhere; it is NOT an approach that should be followed by Historians or people interested in history. From a literary historians perspective the 'Story' told within Ramayana should be irrelevant to us, but the info, reference, linguistics, geography, astronomy or any other similar info available should be important to us. Giving too much importance to story (and the god concept of the character Rama) should be irrelevant and unimportant even from a literary historian's point of view. Let the Religious people be happy with their god, but why should a literary historian should mix-up his views with the views of religious people and bring in `emotion' into play? I don't think it is necessary and even right.Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > <<< In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are> obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to> find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove> that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //> > What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!!> //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! >>>> > ----------->Sorry, you have rightly noticed the goof-up. In Ramayana there is no mention of the personalities of the Mahabharata. This is not to exclude any namesakes. > > > <<< The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? >>>> > With your permission I shall rephrase what I wanted to say. If some events are before both the Ramayana and mahabharata then obviously they can be referred to in both the epics.> > > Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.> > Best regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sreenadh sreesog > Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:17:24 PM> Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil ji, > //> 1)> > Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards./ /> That is good point - I would try to verify it.> //> 2)> > In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //> > What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!!> //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! > //The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? > //Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //> "Currently available Ramayana" is definitely a text written AFTER Mahabharata, evident from the fact that Ramayana mentions several things that ranges even upto 9th century AD! This means that the additions to Ramayana continued to happen till 9th century AD; The Horoscope of Rama added to original Ramayana could be a 2nd Century AD addition (referring to a BC 157 planettary combination) . > Mahabharata is a text of higher plane because the knowledge it shares is in tune with the Vedic past. That is why Mahabharata is known as the 5th Veda. This vast amount of secret knowledge present in Mahabharata is evident from the fact that the author of this text tells us "What ever you find in other books, you will find here as well; but what ever you find here, you may not find elsewhere!"; and also from the words "This text (Mahabharata) contains 1800 SECRET slokas (hiding valuable knowledge)". Thus if there is any text in which we should search for the Davinchi- code (The key) to reveal and understand the ancient knowledge (including the Vedic as well as Non-vedic streams), then that is none but Mahabharata! ! (There are numerous examples for this) This is possible only for an ancient text that understands Vedic tradition and is ancient enough. If Mahabharata is like a great Kingdom, then Ramayana is just like a rural distinct - there is no> comparison between the two - this is my opinion. > Of course it is true that due to Introducing Rama as God (by the interpolated slokas as well due to the later day texts like Ramacharitamanasa and Adhyatma Ramayana) ramayna became a religious text and that is the reason for its popularity; otherwise who can imagine that this average text with numerous problems will be compared with the great epic Mahabharata with a treasure source of knowledge to share?!! > Note: Sorry, I never intended to hurt anyone’s religious feelings - but just expressing my opinion. Locating and deciphering the 1800 secret quotes provided by Mahabharata, could provide a great break through in understanding the ancient indian knowledge in its true perspective. Due to this reason, I love the text Mahabharata, but I do not have this kind of regard for Ramayana. Also I am neither a religious fanatic nor a cultural fanatic. > Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > 1)> > Valmiki has depicted Rama as a human being in his five kandas but in the Bala and the Uttara Kanda Rama is God.The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas were added by someone else afterwards.> > > > 2)> > In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove that Ramayana was after Mahabharata.> > > > 3) I read in a Buddhist text that Lord Buddha had claimed that he was a descendent of Rama of the Ikshaku clan but I do not recall that reference now. Our Buddhist friends in this forum may remember.> > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:05:57 AM> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,> > //> It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. //> > What is the base for this argument? What is the core login/reason behind? > > //> Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . //> > //> The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. //> > You can refer to a discussion regarding the same happened in this gruop itself. One of the mails posted by Chandrahari ji, addresses this issue in detail with references. > > Check this message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4352 > > Regards,> > Sreenadh> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > >> > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > > > A)> > > It is the general opinion of many scholars that the sage Valmiki composed only five Kandas. The Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kandas have not been composed by Valmiki. These have been interpolated into the Ramayana. You might have noticed that I have mentioned only the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana, according to which the Sun just entered Aries, when Rama was born. > > > > > > Secondly the Mahabharata presupposes the Ramayana whereas the Ramayana does not presuppose the Mahabharata. That is what I said in that mail. . > > > > > > According to me these above two conditions have to be met in case of dating of the Ramayana.> > > > > > B)> > > The Mahabharata has the Rama Akhyana but I have not seen any reference to Mahabharata in the Ramayana. I shall be grateful if you kindly enlighten me as to the exact reference on the same. > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Monday, August 25, 2008 10:54:34 PM> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > //On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. //> > > The Horoscope given in Valmiki Ramayana is true for BC 157; The detailes of discussion happened regarding that in this group can be tracked from message: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 4292 > > > //Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata. //> > > This is NOT true. The mention of Ramayana events is present in Mahabharata and the mention of Mahabharata events are present in Ramayana. Thus based on this kind of reference we CANNOT reach any such conclusion. > > > Love and regards,> > > Sreenadh> > > > > > m, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > > > > > I agree with you in that different people have different ideas about the date of Valmiki's Ramayana, composed by the sage Valmiki. On the basis of the detailed astrological information on Lord Rama's birth, as given in the puranic Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text composed by Vedavyasa, it appears to me that Lord Rama's was born about 9300 years ago. Moreover this dating matches with the Yuga-time scale given in the Bhagawat purana and the Vishnu purana. The astro-scholar Avtar Kishen Kaulji could not understand the astronomical details given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana and I had quite some arguments with him on that sometime ago. But I do not wish to go into it now as a very great detailed discussion will be required for that. Further here is mention of the Ramayana events in the Mahabharata and the reverse is not seen, which proves that the Ramayana events occurred before the events of the Mahabharata.> > > > > > > > Regarding the date of the Mahabharata war, as obtained from the astronomical data given by Vedavyasa it is clear to me that it took place in the 32nd century BCE. Some knowledgeable astronomers goofed up the data given by Vedavyasa. For example Vedavyasa indicated that the Saturn was in Visakha and afflicted Rohini. To me it is clear that Saturn being in Visakha can afflict Rohini but astronomers, who do not believe in astrology, have interpreted it as that the Saturn must have been in Rohini to cause the affliction. They simply refuse to believe that Vedavyasa believed in astrology and mixed astrological data along with astronomical data, in spite of the fact that Vedavyasa mentioned about the omens in in the Mahabharata. . Because of this wrong interpretation the modern astronomers of today could not find the correct date of the Mahabharata. Some of them find it difficult to believe that two eclipses can occur separated by a Kshayapaksha of 13> days> > .> > > > They are also not aware that the tithi of the day is the tithi in which the Sun rises. Then some of them are not well-versed in Sanskrit. For example, in the Bhishma parva Vedavyasa gives the word "Tribhaagashesha' , which actually means "Tribhaaganaam shesha bhaaga", which means the last (part) of the the three parts, but the astronomers have given various meanings to this compound word, other than what it really means. This word is very important for identifying the paksha in which Bhishma died. Then there is one very reputed astronomer who says that Bhishma-Panchaka occurred when Bhishma was in the bed of arrows, whereas to my knowledge the Bhishma-Panchaka was from Kartiki-Ekadashi to Kartiki-Purnima and as the war started on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima it is clear that the Bhishma-Panchaka could not have been when Bhishma was on the bed of arrows.> > > > > > > > Thus the dating of the Mahabharata war is not an easy subject and cannot be discussed here and it will require a sizable book to be written on it with all these expalanations. May be some day I shall find some time to do that.> > > > > > > > The great sage Vedavyasa realised that at his time the Vedas and the scriptures became so extensive that they would not survive unless these are divided into different texts as it had become impossible for an individual disciple to memorise and master all the scriptures during his twelve years of stay in the gururkula. Because of the divisions made by Vedavyasa it became possible for the disciples to memorise and master the texts he and his guru had chosen and this way the oral transmission of larger texts could continue. However from the time of Mahabharata the larger puranas and the epics were gradually written down. However the Vedas continued to be transmitted orally till a late date. > > > > > > > > The mail has already become too long and I wish to conclude here as this subject is very interesting and one can go on and on.> > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Monday, August 25, 2008 2:22:48 AM> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > > > > //As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana //> > > > I don't think that that Ramayana is an ancient text (The currently available text is possibly of AD 2nd/3rd century origin). Further there were numerous Vasishtas, since Vasishta was Guru parampara, a clan - Similar to Gargas (Gargs) and Parasaras and Kausikas. The ancient Rishi Kulas were like the Universities where the head teacher of the Kula holds the sage title (Such as Vasishta, Narada, Mandhavya, Chyevana or Ati or what ever that be). So we can not be much sure about the period of 'Vasishta' (considering as if it refers to ONLY ONE sage and lived in one period alone). > > > > //Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. //> > > > First, what was the period of Mahabharata is one controversial question. Second, from linguistic perspective the language used in Mahabharata is pretty evolved compared to that of Vedic language - and thus the currently available Mahabharata cannot be a text of Vedic period around BCE 3100. Thirdly we need to ensure, to whom the word Vedic Period refers to (Are we referring to Sindhu-Sarasvati ppl, or specifically to Kalibengan ppl and so on), since Vedic 'culture' is not much supported by archeological evidences. > > > > //Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponsible action.//> > > > I am of the opinion that we should allow criticism, because only when strong criticism is present people will search for more logical arguments, supportive evidence; it is said that those which are born in fire will not perish simple heat of sunlight. Thus let the arguments evolve with inner strength - and for that criticism is necessary, and it should be appreciated.> > > > Love and regards,> > > > Sreeandh> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Traditionally this is an old text of the Mahabharata times ie. composed by around 3100 BCE ie. more than 200 generations ago. This also means that they must have been transcribed many times in the past but that does not reduce their antiquity. In fact the book gives an account of what happened much before the Mahabharata times and this means the facts mentioned in it are very much older than 5000 years. As Vasishtha lived in the times of Ramayana the mentioned events should have occurred around 9000 years ago. Therefore without any valid and irrefutable proof to the contrary one should not make any such statement to contradict what the age-old tradition says, otherwise it will be considered an irresponslibe action.> > > > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > > > SKB> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > koenraad_elst koenraad.elst@ ...> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:35:08 AM> > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to add that Xerxes, the successor of Darius-I, the great > > > > > Archimedian emperor, did defeat the Greeks and occupy Greece. > > > > > However that occupation was short and it lasted for one year only. It > > > > > is believed by some that Alexander's expedition against the > > > > > Archimedian empire was to avenge that defeat<> > > > > > > > > > Because Xerxes destroyed Greek temples, Alexander, who otherwise > > > > > respected all gods and temples of all peoples, extinguished many > > > > > Zoroastrian sacred fires in Iran.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Yavanas one finds that according to the Harivamsha > > > > > (the appendix to the Mahabharata) the Yavanas were Kshatriyas, who > > > > > were expelled from his kingdom by the king Sagar, on the advice of > > > > > the sage Vasishtha, as they revolted. So they were very much of > > > > > Indian origin.> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > That's a pretty late text, early Christian centuries, when the word > > > > > Yavana was already several centuries old and may have begun losing > > > > > its original specific meaning. It is unclear what the said passage > > > > > exactly refers to. If the Vedic Vasishtha is meant, then clearly > > > > > these Yavans are not the Greeks. unless they were the Greeks of the > > > > > Vedic era, the era of the disintegration of the PIE peoples and their > > > > > spread from South Asia westward, who were certainly not known as > > > > > Ionians/Yavanas yet. It is highly doubtful the tha Alexandrine Yavans > > > > > would have remembered anything about ndian origins two millennia > > > > > earlier. At any rate no Greek text ever refers to such memory.> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > > Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:40:45 AM> > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Yavanas (Non-Greeks; People of > > > > > Ionia and NOT Macedonia)!> > > > > > > > > > > > Ionia was a part of the Achaemenid empire, the rest of> > > > > > Greece was not, so any Greeks resetlled to the east of the empire> > > > > > would have been Ionians. That makes it likely the word dates from> > > > > > before Alexander.> > > > > > (http://tech. groups.. com IndiaArchaeology /message/ > > > > > 7520)> > > > > > ====> > > > > > > * We also know that the word 'Yavana' as per indian > > > > > astrological sources dates back even to BC 1400!<> > > > > > > > > > Do we really? What source is that?> > > > > > > > > > > How come indian people know about Ionia and Ionians much prior to > > > > > Greeks?! If not to the Alexandrian Greeks to whom this word refer > > > > > to? Which culture and cultural heritage is referred to?!<> > > > > > > > > > Alexander was resisted by a Greek population in Afganistan. he told > > > > > them not to sue for peace on any terms, as he was determined to kill > > > > > them to the last; which he proceeded to do. Those were the pre-> > > > > Alexandrine Ionians resettled by the Achaemenids since ca. 500 BC.> > > > > > > > > > > * They spoke the Anatolian languages are a group of extinct > > > > > Indo-European languages, which were spoken in Asia Minor , the best > > > > > attested of them being the Hittite language. The Anatolian branch is > > > > > generally considered the earliest to split off the Proto-Indo-> > > > > European language, from a stage referred to either as Indo-Hittite > > > > > or "Middle PIE", typically a date in the mid-4th millennium BC is > > > > > assumed. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Anatolian_ languages <> > > > > > > > > > Some Ionians may have been Hittites or Luwains or other non-IEs who > > > > > adopted the newly dominant language. But in general, Ionians were > > > > > simply Greek settles in Ionia. As Ionians, they spoke Greek, not > > > > > Anatolian.> > > > > > > > > > > So in short the Yavanas are NOT Greeks, but the ancient > > > > > people lived in Smyrna BEFORE the barbarian Alexandrian/ Macedonian > > > > > Greeks destroyed their culture!<> > > > > > > > > > They are Greeks, e.g. the philosophers Thales and Herokleitos. And > > > > > Alexander didn't destroy their culture. Some of their cities had been > > > > > destroyed by the Persians, but generally they too left their culture > > > > > alone.> > > > > > > > > > > Ionians appear in Indic literature and documents as Yavana and > > > > > Yona.<> > > > > > > > > > Yes.> > > > > > > > > > >Prior to then, the Yavanas appear in the Vedas with reference to the > > > > > Vedic period, which could be as early as the 2nd or 3rd millennium > > > > > BC.<> > > > > > > > > > Do they really?!> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > > > > > KE> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,

 

I am unable to agree that Rama is not a historical figure. Sone pseudo-scholars,

who did not understand what the Bhagawat Purana and Vishnu Purana say about the

Yuga- classification, misinterpreted the length of the yugas as given in these

two Puranas. I am not talking about the Jaina Puranas either as these were

written 500 years after the departure of Lord Mahavira. I believe that Epics are

also Iihasas. I value the astronomical data given therein.

 

Secondly we are talking about the Valmiki Ramayana only as the birth data quoted

was from the bala Kanda.

 

Thirdly in the time of Valmiki the Rashis were not used. Even though the Bala

Kanda and the Uttara Kanda were appended afterwards the writer had the common

sense that he did not mention Rashi as Rashi was not used in the days of

Valmiki. Some fake astrologers later on interpreted that the exaltations

occurred in the Rashis without specifying the degrees. The exaltation occurs in

a particular nakshatra belonging to a Rashi.. When one speaks in terms of

exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the particular degrees and not the

entire Rashi. Further one should also keep in mind that the data of Balakanda

did not say that Buddha was debilitated. Adhyatma Ramayana says that the Sun

just entered the Masha Rashi, as towards the end of the Dwapara yuga the Rashis

came to be used as we see in the Bhagawat purana. This combined with the data of

the Balakanda means to me that the Sun entered the Ashwini nakshatra. I feel

that the discerning scholars /

astrologers should have straightway discarded the fake interpretations.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

Sreenadh <sreesog

 

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:50:56 AM

Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

//Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157

BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me

adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going

to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no

objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.//

Why should we think that Rama lived during BC 157?!! The point I was trying

to convey was that the Horoscope given in Ramayana (as that of Rama) is of BC

157, and this points to the fact that the book Ramaya got totally modified and

numerous portions (like this horoscope; and possibly the Balakanda and

Uttarakanda portions etc) added to the 'Original' text. A reference to BC 157

horoscope proves it as a sure fact that the original Ramayana CERTAINLY got

re-written AFTER BC 157 (i.e. I suppose around AD 200) and the currently

available Ramayana is this MODIFIED TEXT.

Since Mahabharata refers to Ramayana, and also because numerous other ancient

Vedic texts refers to Ramayana story, the following possibilities emerge -

1) There was an original Ramayana text available (even though that text is NOT

the currently available Ramayana)

2) It is also possible that after the current ramayana become popular (as a

religious text), slokas are interpolated into the ancient texts like Mahabharata

(in an effort to prove that Ramayana is older).

Instead of assuming that one of these two possibilities might have happened,

it might be more natural and correct to assume that both the above things

happened. Thus we can assume that -

* There was an original Ramayana available from ancient times which is no

more available now. The core story of that ancient text might have many

similarities with the current one. (If this is true - some body should have to

do a sincere research to reveal the original story of Ramayana based on stray

references from Vedic literature and Mahabharata)

* Currently available Ramayana is an ancient text modified through centuries;

almost totally modified between BC 157 - AD 250 and currently it is a text with

numerous interpolations and additions.

* Since Rama is just a imaginary character mentioned in a literary text,

there is no point in considering him as a historical figure. There is no point

in trying to fix a period of Rama. The Horoscope of Rama DOES NOT reflect the

period of rama but only the the period after which the ancient text Ramayana got

corrupted and almost totally modified.

* The popularity of Ramayana as a religious text AFTER this modification

(between BC 157 - AD 200), caused the corruption of many other texts as well,

and also the distortion of history. Because -

1) Pseudo scholars started interpolating slokas to age old/ancient texts

like Mahabharata.

2) Places were named after the place names given in Ramayana and this

caused much confusion regarding geography and story mentioned in Ramaya and the

'actual' location mentioned by the author in his book. (Please note that the

events mentioned in Ramaya NEVER took place because, Ramayana is modified

literary text only and NOT a book of history).

 

Note: Considering literary texts like a tertiary resource in the study of

history is OK, but NOT as primary or secondary evidence. Even the study of

literary history should consider the real/natural/ human possibilities of

corruption and interpolation. Where we stand and what we are speaking about is

not a thing to forget. Based on tertiary evidence like simple literary books and

trying to IMAGINE history out of it AS IF we are dealing with real books of

history is NOT the right track to follow, and does not lead anywhere; it is NOT

an approach that should be followed by Historians or people interested in

history. From a literary historians perspective the 'Story' told within Ramayana

should be irrelevant to us, but the info, reference, linguistics, geography,

astronomy or any other similar info available should be important to us. Giving

too much importance to story (and the god concept of the character Rama) should

be irrelevant and unimportant even

from a literary historian's point of view. Let the Religious people be happy

with their god, but why should a literary historian should mix-up his views with

the views of religious people and bring in `emotion' into play? I don't think it

is necessary and even right.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadhji,

>

> <<< In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are

> obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to

> find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove

> that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //

>

> What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!!

> //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! >>>

>

> ----------->Sorry, you have rightly noticed the goof-up. In Ramayana there is

no mention of the personalities of the Mahabharata. This is not to exclude any

namesakes.

>

>

> <<< The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why

'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before

Mahabharata? >>>

>

> With your permission I shall rephrase what I wanted to say. If some events are

before both the Ramayana and mahabharata then obviously they can be referred to

in both the epics.

>

>

> Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157

BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me

adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going

to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no

objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> 2008 10:

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

The web is for discussion on the subject " Anicient_indian_astrology " why do u

people fight about dates of RAMAYANA & MAHA BHARATHA.Why one should agree or

disagree with others. Kindly let us be restricted todiscussuion of anicient

indian astrology.Stop discussions of other the subject.

 

Thanks

Chandra Mouliswer Ghatty

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Generally we have two choices - 1) To consider the horoscope present in Valimiki Ramayana as an interpolation. Then we can go on to find the faults in it or to find the period at which this interpolation happened. 2) To consider the horoscope as part of original Valmiki Ramayana. Then who ever argues so will have to answer all the logical questions asked (such as about exaltation or whether the horoscope is tropical or Nirayana and so on) and will have to explain logically and in tune with our current scientific/astronomical understanding (how and why that is possible). Finding a hiding resort in religious feelings, unrealistic beliefs in yuga concepts and lengths, bhakti in god etc will not help and is NOT valuable in a historical perspective. Certainly I am of the first opinion and NOT of the second. //> Thirdly in the time of Valmiki the Rashis were not used. Even though the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda were appended afterwards the writer had the common sense that he did not mention Rashi as Rashi was not used in the days of Valmiki. Some fake astrologers later on interpreted that the exaltations occurred in the Rashis without specifying the degrees. The exaltation occurs in a particular nakshatra belonging to a Rashi.. When one speaks in terms of exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the particular degrees and not the entire Rashi. Further one should also keep in mind that the data of Balakanda did not say that Buddha was debilitated. Adhyatma Ramayana says that the Sun just entered the Masha Rashi, as towards the end of the Dwapara yuga the Rashis came to be used as we see in the Bhagawat purana. This combined with the data of the Balakanda means to me that the Sun entered the Ashwini nakshatra. I feel that the discerning scholars astrologers should have straightway discarded the fake interpretations.// There are numerous problems/conflicts with these arguments - such as saying that at the time of Valmiki Rashis were NOT used and then saying that Exaltation mentioned in Rashi should be attributed to Nakshtras and so on. Again the statement -"When one speaks in terms of exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the particular degrees and not the entire Rashi." - is absolutly wrong because even as per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation. Valmiki is speaking about and uses the word Ucha and NOT Paramocha. There are numerous other problems as well in the above paragraph given by you - but I don't want to go into it in detail, since many of those issue are discussed in this group once (you can go through the old messages in the archives with discusses the horoscope given in currently available Valmiki Ramayana). Note: As Bhaskar ji puts it, at this juncture I also feel that it would be good to put this thread to a sleep mode some time, because otherwise it might cause ignitions, by going to religious mode and so on. So let us move on to other subjects. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > I am unable to agree that Rama is not a historical figure. Sone pseudo-scholars, who did not understand what the Bhagawat Purana and Vishnu Purana say about the Yuga- classification, misinterpreted the length of the yugas as given in these two Puranas. I am not talking about the Jaina Puranas either as these were written 500 years after the departure of Lord Mahavira. I believe that Epics are also Iihasas. I value the astronomical data given therein.> > Secondly we are talking about the Valmiki Ramayana only as the birth data quoted was from the bala Kanda.> > Thirdly in the time of Valmiki the Rashis were not used. Even though the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda were appended afterwards the writer had the common sense that he did not mention Rashi as Rashi was not used in the days of Valmiki. Some fake astrologers later on interpreted that the exaltations occurred in the Rashis without specifying the degrees. The exaltation occurs in a particular nakshatra belonging to a Rashi.. When one speaks in terms of exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the particular degrees and not the entire Rashi. Further one should also keep in mind that the data of Balakanda did not say that Buddha was debilitated. Adhyatma Ramayana says that the Sun just entered the Masha Rashi, as towards the end of the Dwapara yuga the Rashis came to be used as we see in the Bhagawat purana. This combined with the data of the Balakanda means to me that the Sun entered the Ashwini nakshatra. I feel that the discerning scholars /> astrologers should have straightway discarded the fake interpretations.> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sreenadh sreesog > Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:50:56 AM> Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,> //Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.//> Why should we think that Rama lived during BC 157?!! The point I was trying to convey was that the Horoscope given in Ramayana (as that of Rama) is of BC 157, and this points to the fact that the book Ramaya got totally modified and numerous portions (like this horoscope; and possibly the Balakanda and Uttarakanda portions etc) added to the 'Original' text. A reference to BC 157 horoscope proves it as a sure fact that the original Ramayana CERTAINLY got re-written AFTER BC 157 (i.e. I suppose around AD 200) and the currently available Ramayana is this MODIFIED TEXT.> Since Mahabharata refers to Ramayana, and also because numerous other ancient Vedic texts refers to Ramayana story, the following possibilities emerge -> 1) There was an original Ramayana text available (even though that text is NOT the currently available Ramayana)> 2) It is also possible that after the current ramayana become popular (as a religious text), slokas are interpolated into the ancient texts like Mahabharata (in an effort to prove that Ramayana is older).> Instead of assuming that one of these two possibilities might have happened, it might be more natural and correct to assume that both the above things happened. Thus we can assume that -> * There was an original Ramayana available from ancient times which is no more available now. The core story of that ancient text might have many similarities with the current one. (If this is true - some body should have to do a sincere research to reveal the original story of Ramayana based on stray references from Vedic literature and Mahabharata)> * Currently available Ramayana is an ancient text modified through centuries; almost totally modified between BC 157 - AD 250 and currently it is a text with numerous interpolations and additions.> * Since Rama is just a imaginary character mentioned in a literary text, there is no point in considering him as a historical figure. There is no point in trying to fix a period of Rama. The Horoscope of Rama DOES NOT reflect the period of rama but only the the period after which the ancient text Ramayana got corrupted and almost totally modified.> * The popularity of Ramayana as a religious text AFTER this modification (between BC 157 - AD 200), caused the corruption of many other texts as well, and also the distortion of history. Because -> 1) Pseudo scholars started interpolating slokas to age old/ancient texts like Mahabharata.> 2) Places were named after the place names given in Ramayana and this caused much confusion regarding geography and story mentioned in Ramaya and the 'actual' location mentioned by the author in his book. (Please note that the events mentioned in Ramaya NEVER took place because, Ramayana is modified literary text only and NOT a book of history).> > Note: Considering literary texts like a tertiary resource in the study of history is OK, but NOT as primary or secondary evidence. Even the study of literary history should consider the real/natural/ human possibilities of corruption and interpolation. Where we stand and what we are speaking about is not a thing to forget. Based on tertiary evidence like simple literary books and trying to IMAGINE history out of it AS IF we are dealing with real books of history is NOT the right track to follow, and does not lead anywhere; it is NOT an approach that should be followed by Historians or people interested in history. From a literary historians perspective the 'Story' told within Ramayana should be irrelevant to us, but the info, reference, linguistics, geography, astronomy or any other similar info available should be important to us. Giving too much importance to story (and the god concept of the character Rama) should be irrelevant and unimportant even> from a literary historian's point of view. Let the Religious people be happy with their god, but why should a literary historian should mix-up his views with the views of religious people and bring in `emotion' into play? I don't think it is necessary and even right.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> >> > <<< In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are> > obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to> > find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove> > that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //> >> > What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!!> > //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! >>>> >> > ----------->Sorry, you have rightly noticed the goof-up. In Ramayana there is no mention of the personalities of the Mahabharata. This is not to exclude any namesakes.> >> >> > <<< The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? >>>> >> > With your permission I shall rephrase what I wanted to say. If some events are before both the Ramayana and mahabharata then obviously they can be referred to in both the epics.> >> >> > Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.> >> > Best regards,> >> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> >> > 2008 10:>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ghatti Chandra Mouliswer ji, As well explained about the use and purpose of such discussions in the mail to Bhaskar ji (Link: /message/13468 ) this subject is NOT alian to this group; and is a welcome one. Any discussion on Epic astrology/astronomy and thus any discussion on Horoscope of Rama as given Ramayana or Date of Mahabharata or Ramayana (based on astronomical/astrological or other references) etc are all part of the "Vedic Tropical Astonomical/astrological discussions" (as given in the home page of the group; and also they are "Ancient", "Indian" and also "Astrology related" as the group name suggests. Hope this clarifies. Note: If you don't like the thread, then simply ignore it. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Ghatti Chandra Mouliswer <ghatti_chandra_mouliswer wrote:>> Dear All,> The web is for discussion on the subject "Anicient_indian_astrology" why do u people fight about dates of RAMAYANA & MAHA BHARATHA.Why one should agree or disagree with others. Kindly let us be restricted todiscussuion of anicient indian astrology.Stop discussions of other the subject.> > Thanks> Chandra Mouliswer Ghatty>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kishoreji ,You bear the name of my Guru - Kishore Kumar the Singer. I understood in you first post what you meant when you spoke about Tamilian ...

 

 

 

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

I have made the comment in lighter vein because you are my friend. May be I did not know how to joke without offending you.

 

I assure you that no offense is meant. You are my good friend and hence, I took liberty of joking.

 

Hope you are not hurt.

 

best regards,

 

Kishore patnaik best wishes,Bhaskaran. - Show quoted text -

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the "Degree" into account in a"Rashi" when we talk of "Uccha" and "Neeccha". Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any "Degree" within a "Rashi". Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaSreenadh <sreesog Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:20:51 AM Re:Date of Ramayana and

MahabharataDear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Generally we have two choices - 1) To consider the horoscope present in Valimiki Ramayana as an interpolation. Then we can go on to find the faults in it or to find the period at which this interpolation happened. 2) To consider the horoscope as part of original Valmiki Ramayana. Then who ever argues so will have to answer all the logical questions asked (such as about exaltation or whether the horoscope is tropical or Nirayana and so on) and

will have to explain logically and in tune with our current scientific/astronom ical understanding (how and why that is possible). Finding a hiding resort in religious feelings, unrealistic beliefs in yuga concepts and lengths, bhakti in god etc will not help and is NOT valuable in a historical perspective. Certainly I am of the first opinion and NOT of the second. //> Thirdly in the time of Valmiki the Rashis were not used. Even though the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda were appended afterwards the writer had the common sense that he did not mention Rashi as Rashi was not used in the days of Valmiki. Some fake astrologers later on interpreted that the exaltations occurred in the Rashis without specifying the degrees. The exaltation occurs in a particular nakshatra belonging to a Rashi.. When one speaks in terms of exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the

particular degrees and not the entire Rashi. Further one should also keep in mind that the data of Balakanda did not say that Buddha was debilitated. Adhyatma Ramayana says that the Sun just entered the Masha Rashi, as towards the end of the Dwapara yuga the Rashis came to be used as we see in the Bhagawat purana. This combined with the data of the Balakanda means to me that the Sun entered the Ashwini nakshatra. I feel that the discerning scholars astrologers should have straightway discarded the fake interpretations. // There are numerous problems/conflicts with these arguments - such as saying that at the time of Valmiki Rashis were NOT used and then saying that Exaltation mentioned in Rashi should be attributed to Nakshtras and so on. Again the statement -"When one speaks in terms of exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the particular degrees and not the entire Rashi." - is absolutly wrong

because even as per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation. Valmiki is speaking about and uses the word Ucha and NOT Paramocha. There are numerous other problems as well in the above paragraph given by you - but I don't want to go into it in detail, since many of those issue are discussed in this group once (you can go through the old messages in the archives with discusses the horoscope given in currently available Valmiki Ramayana). Note: As Bhaskar ji puts it, at this juncture I also feel that it would be good to put this thread to a sleep mode some time, because otherwise it might cause ignitions, by going to religious mode and so on. So let us move on to other

subjects. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > I am unable to agree that Rama is not a historical figure. Sone pseudo-scholars, who did not understand what the Bhagawat Purana and Vishnu Purana say about the Yuga- classification, misinterpreted the length of the yugas as given in these two Puranas. I am not talking about the Jaina Puranas either as these were written 500 years after the departure of Lord Mahavira. I believe that Epics are also Iihasas. I value the astronomical data given therein.> > Secondly we are talking about the Valmiki Ramayana only as the birth data quoted was from the bala Kanda.> > Thirdly in the time of Valmiki the Rashis were not used. Even though the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda were appended afterwards the

writer had the common sense that he did not mention Rashi as Rashi was not used in the days of Valmiki. Some fake astrologers later on interpreted that the exaltations occurred in the Rashis without specifying the degrees. The exaltation occurs in a particular nakshatra belonging to a Rashi.. When one speaks in terms of exaltation in a Rashi then one should specify the particular degrees and not the entire Rashi. Further one should also keep in mind that the data of Balakanda did not say that Buddha was debilitated. Adhyatma Ramayana says that the Sun just entered the Masha Rashi, as towards the end of the Dwapara yuga the Rashis came to be used as we see in the Bhagawat purana. This combined with the data of the Balakanda means to me that the Sun entered the Ashwini nakshatra. I feel that the discerning scholars /> astrologers should have straightway discarded the fake interpretations.> > Regards,> > Sunil K.

Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sreenadh sreesog ancient_indian_ astrology> Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:50:56 AM> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,> //Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.//> Why should we think that Rama lived during BC 157?!! The point I was trying to convey was that the Horoscope given in Ramayana (as that of Rama) is of BC 157, and this points to the fact that the book Ramaya got

totally modified and numerous portions (like this horoscope; and possibly the Balakanda and Uttarakanda portions etc) added to the 'Original' text. A reference to BC 157 horoscope proves it as a sure fact that the original Ramayana CERTAINLY got re-written AFTER BC 157 (i.e. I suppose around AD 200) and the currently available Ramayana is this MODIFIED TEXT.> Since Mahabharata refers to Ramayana, and also because numerous other ancient Vedic texts refers to Ramayana story, the following possibilities emerge -> 1) There was an original Ramayana text available (even though that text is NOT the currently available Ramayana)> 2) It is also possible that after the current ramayana become popular (as a religious text), slokas are interpolated into the ancient texts like Mahabharata (in an effort to prove that Ramayana is older).> Instead of assuming that one of these two possibilities might have happened, it might be more natural

and correct to assume that both the above things happened. Thus we can assume that -> * There was an original Ramayana available from ancient times which is no more available now. The core story of that ancient text might have many similarities with the current one. (If this is true - some body should have to do a sincere research to reveal the original story of Ramayana based on stray references from Vedic literature and Mahabharata)> * Currently available Ramayana is an ancient text modified through centuries; almost totally modified between BC 157 - AD 250 and currently it is a text with numerous interpolations and additions.> * Since Rama is just a imaginary character mentioned in a literary text, there is no point in considering him as a historical figure. There is no point in trying to fix a period of Rama. The Horoscope of Rama DOES NOT reflect the period of rama but only the the period after which the ancient text Ramayana

got corrupted and almost totally modified.> * The popularity of Ramayana as a religious text AFTER this modification (between BC 157 - AD 200), caused the corruption of many other texts as well, and also the distortion of history. Because -> 1) Pseudo scholars started interpolating slokas to age old/ancient texts like Mahabharata.> 2) Places were named after the place names given in Ramayana and this caused much confusion regarding geography and story mentioned in Ramaya and the 'actual' location mentioned by the author in his book. (Please note that the events mentioned in Ramaya NEVER took place because, Ramayana is modified literary text only and NOT a book of history).> > Note: Considering literary texts like a tertiary resource in the study of history is OK, but NOT as primary or secondary evidence. Even the study of literary history should consider the real/natural/ human possibilities of corruption and

interpolation. Where we stand and what we are speaking about is not a thing to forget. Based on tertiary evidence like simple literary books and trying to IMAGINE history out of it AS IF we are dealing with real books of history is NOT the right track to follow, and does not lead anywhere; it is NOT an approach that should be followed by Historians or people interested in history. From a literary historians perspective the 'Story' told within Ramayana should be irrelevant to us, but the info, reference, linguistics, geography, astronomy or any other similar info available should be important to us. Giving too much importance to story (and the god concept of the character Rama) should be irrelevant and unimportant even> from a literary historian's point of view. Let the Religious people be happy with their god, but why should a literary historian should mix-up his views with the views of religious people and bring in `emotion' into play? I don't

think it is necessary and even right.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> >> > <<< In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. The events before Ramayana are> > obviously before the Mahabharata. Therefore it is not surprising to> > find mention of such events in both the epics and this does not prove> > that Ramayana was after Mahabharata. //> >> > What an absurd and confusing paragraph it is!!!> > //> In Ramayana there is no mention of Rama. // What do you mean by this?! >>>> >> > ----------->Sorry, you have rightly noticed the goof-up. In Ramayana there is no mention of the personalities of the Mahabharata. This is not to exclude any namesakes.>

>> >> > <<< The events before Ramayana are obviously before the Mahabharata. // Why 'obviously' - if not you pre-suppose that Ramayana got written before Mahabharata? >>>> >> > With your permission I shall rephrase what I wanted to say. If some events are before both the Ramayana and mahabharata then obviously they can be referred to in both the epics.> >> >> > Finally I shall beg you to pardon me as I am unable to agree to a date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. What I had to say on it I had said so far. You can call me adamant if you like. I can only say that all these years of study is not going to allow me to accept the date of 157 BCE for Lord Rama. You win. I have no objection if everybody accepts that Lord Rama was born in 157 BCE.> >> > Best regards,> >> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> >> > 2008

10:>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ghatti Chandra Mouliswerji,The date of Lord Rama is very important for a Hindu. Lord Rama's name is mentioned even in in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda. There cannot be an iota of doubt regarding his antiquity. Further his was the most unique horoscope and should interest student of Jyotish vidya..Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaSreenadh <sreesog Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:40:12 AMSubject:

Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

Dear Ghatti Chandra Mouliswer ji, As well explained about the use and purpose of such discussions in the mail to Bhaskar ji (Link: http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 13468 ) this subject is NOT alian to this group; and is a welcome one. Any discussion on Epic astrology/astronomy and thus any discussion on Horoscope of Rama as given Ramayana or Date of Mahabharata or Ramayana (based on astronomical/ astrological or other references) etc are all part of the "Vedic Tropical Astonomical/ astrological discussions" (as given in the home page of the group; and also they are "Ancient", "Indian" and also "Astrology related" as the group

name suggests. Hope this clarifies. Note: If you don't like the thread, then simply ignore it. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Ghatti Chandra Mouliswer <ghatti_chandra_ mouliswer@ ...> wrote:>> Dear All,> The web is for discussion on the subject "Anicient_indian_ astrology" why do u people fight about dates of RAMAYANA & MAHA BHARATHA.Why one should agree or disagree with others. Kindly let us be restricted todiscussuion of anicient indian astrology.Stop discussions of other the subject.> > Thanks> Chandra Mouliswer Ghatty>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji, Sunilji and group, Before this thread goes in slumber, let me add a bit of info which I located sometime back. This article by Arabinda Ghose appeared in Feb 2006 issue of Organiser. A computer expert, Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar has, it seems calculated the astronomical positions as given in the epic and arrived at a date of birth accordingly.

The article is here for whatever is its worth.

Controversy Is Ramayana a mere epic or part of India's ancient history?

By Arabinda Ghose

Most of the Hindus of India and Nepal as also of countries where

emigrant Hindus live in sizeable numbers celebrate Ram Navami, which

falls on the ninth day of the bright half of the lunar month of

Chaitra, corresponding to March-April of the Georgian calendar.

Countries of South-East Asia such as Thailand too revere Lord Rama and

the predominantly Muslim nation of Indonesia celebrates Ramayana as a

ballet.

The Valmiki Ramayana in Sanskrit as also the Tulsi Ramayana by

Saint Tulsidas in Hindi are extremely popular volumes throughout India

and abroad. But is Ramayana a description of the lives and times of

Lord Rama and the Raghukul (the descendants of King Raghu) and the

times during an unknown period of India's ancient "history" or is it

nothing but an epic which, Hindus believe to be a true account of the

events in ancient India?

Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar, who is a computer expert, claims that

he has not only calculated the exact date and time of Lord Rama's

birth, but all happenings in his life till his age of 39 years, when he

had returned to Ayodhya after slaying Ravana. According to him Lord

Rama was born at 12.30 p.m. on January 10, 5114 b.c. Shri Bhatnagar has

relied entirely on the positions of the sun, the moon and the planets,

visible to the naked eye those days, described by Sage Valmiki in his

Ramayana for calculating the day and even time of many of the events in

the life of Lord Rama.

This article is merely a rewriting of the letter of Shri

Bhatnagar published by Asian Agri History, dated October-December,

2004, a magazine which is devoted to discovering and writing about the

ancient systems of agriculture that was in vogue in the Asian region in

ancient times.

A computer specialist claims firm dates of Ramayana, says Lord Rama was born in 5114 b.c.

The following is the extract of the letter:

"Moving forward, it has been stated that on the Amavasya (new

moon day) of the 10th month of the 13th year of his exile he (had)

fought Khar and Dushan and on that day, a solar eclipse was seen from

Panchawati. Not only had a solar eclipse occurred that day, but the

planets too were arranged in the sky in a particular manner (that day).

Six months later, when Rama (had) killed Bali on the Amavasya of Ashadh

(June-July) of the 14th year of (his) exile, another solar eclipse was

visible in the morning sky and after five months, when Hanuman went to

meet Sita in Lanka, a lunar eclipse was witnessed in the evening.

Besides these, several other planetary positions have been mentioned at

different other places.

"It is important to know that planetary positions keep (on)

changing every day in the sky and they do not repeat (the same

positions) for lakhs of years. Moreover, if we know the position of all

the planets in the sky, they refer to one and only one date in history.

"The effort to provide dates to the planetary positions

mentioned in (the) Ramayana and other Vedic literature began with (the)

legendary Bal Gangadhar Tilak in his well-known book The Orion.

However, the efforts made so far were based on manual computations.

Since one revolution of these planets is completed in a highly complex

fractional number (apparently the author refers to the period of the

revolution of these planets around the sun and of the rotations on

their axes), it is difficult to arrive at the accurate day and time in

history (when these events had taken place). But in the late 1990s,

many (computer) software were developed (in order) to track the

positions of the planets in the sky and with these software, (the)

planets' position at any given point of time in the sky can be known.

"By using a powerful planetarium software, I found that the

planetary positions mentioned in the Ramayana for the date of the birth

of Lord Rama had occurred in the sky at 12.30 p.m. on January 10, 5114

b.c. It was the ninth day of the Shukla Paksha of Chaitra (March-April)

month too. Moving forward, after 25 years of the birth of Lord Rama,

the position of (the) planets in the sky tallies with their description

in the Ramayana. Again, on the Amavasya of the 10th month of the 13th

year of exile, the solar eclipse had indeed occurred and the particular

arrangement of (the) planets in the sky was visible. (Date comes to

October 7, 5077 b.c.). Even the occurrence of the subsequent two

eclipses also tally with the respective descriptions in (the) Valmiki

Ramayana. Date of Hanuman's meeting (with) Sita in Lanka was September

12, 5076, b.c. In this manner, the entire sequence of the planetary

positions gets verified and all the dates can be precisely determined."

Is Ramayana a description of the lives

and times of Lord Rama and the Raghukul (the descendants of King Raghu)

and the times during an unknown period of India's ancient "history" or

is it nothing but an epic which, Hindus believe to be a true account of

the events in ancient India?

Shri Bhatnagar adds that the entire dating had been conducted

objectively because the software does not permit any manipulation and

the verses of the Ramayana were also free of any doubts. Leading

scientists and those in the field have appreciated this work. Since the

entire sequence tallies, it proves that all the observations in the

Ramayana were actual recordings and not conjectures.

Indologists suggest, Shri Bhatnagar says, that he should

produce some archaeological evidences in support of these dates because

for western historians, these dates are too old to be accepted. "By

God's grace" he says, "I came across an interesting archaeological

evidence also". He describes that evidence in the following paragraphs.

"About a few months ago, NASA (National Aeronautical and Space

Administration of the United States) had photographed an ancient bridge

like structure between India and Sri Lanka and stated that it appeared

to be man-made. Most of our historians and theologists jumped at the

story and said that it was related to Lord Rama. NASA denied having

made any statement regarding how the bridge got built, etc. The

enthusiasm died soon and nothing could be concluded since we were

trying to prove that it was built millions of years ago.

"Just analyse the situation", said Shri Bhatnagar, "Suppose

you build your house with stones which are millions of years old. Does

your house also become millions of years old? The answer is a clear

No".

"This was the mistake we were making while trying to claim the

ancient bridge and the antiquity of Lord Rama to millions of years ago.

Actually, the remains of the bridge, which Lord Rama had built, are

still available at a place called "Chedu Karai"in Tamil Nadu. Chedu

means setu (bridge) and karai means corner. Interestingly, the remains

of the bridge are available at the depth of ten feet below the water

and these are about 1.5 kilometres inside the sea.

Valmiki mentions that six months

later, when Rama (had) killed Bali on the Amavasya of Ashadh

(June-July) of the 14th year of (his) exile, another solar eclipse was

visible in the morning sky and after five months, when Hanuman went to

meet Sita in Lanka, a lunar eclipse was witnessed in the evening.

Besides these, several other planetary positions have been mentioned at

different other places.

"We are all aware that the rise of sea level, ever since the

end of the last ice age (about 16,000 b.c.) is a continuous phenomenon.

Countries like the USA and Australia which are having large coast lines

and large cities on the coasts are making emergency plans to deal with

the constant and accelerated rise in sea level which threatens the

cities like New York.

"So, with the intention of studying the subject I went through

a number of research papers and tried to find the scientific data

available on the rise of sea-level over a period of time. I,

accordingly, sent a mail to one of the research scholars for data on

the rise of sea level over the last 7,000 years. And the rate of rise

of sea suggests that about 7,000 years ago, the sea level was exactly

about 10 feet below the present level.

Hence one can prove that the 'remains of the bridge' which are

about ten feet below the present sea level, are part of the bridge

which was built around 7,000 years ago. This is what works out to be

the date of era of Lord Rama astronomically."

"One can imagine that at the time when Hanuman crossed the sea

and again the army crossed it, the sea level was about ten feet below

what we see today and at that time the sea was behind by about 1.5 to 2

km. In about 7,000 years, it has encroached the land by about two km.

All these findings, in a comprehensive manner have been published in a

book called Dating the Era of Lord Rama."

 

RegardsNeelam

[Guest guest]

Dear Meelamji,

 

I had the occasion to browse through the first edition of Bhatnagar's book,

which was published by Rupa a few years ago and that edition of his book did

not mention any details of the Lord Rama's horoscope, as given in the Balakanda.

He considered some other details from the Ramayana to arrive at his figure of

the date of Lord Rama. I wrote to Bhatnagar at that time but he did not reply.

If anybody has his book he can please check if the details of the birth of Lord

Rama, as given in the Bala Kanda, had been incorporated in its next editon, if

there is any.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

neelam gupta <neelamgupta07

 

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:43:20 AM

Re: Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Sreenadhji, Sunilji and group,

 

Before this thread goes in slumber, let me add a bit of info which I located

sometime back.

This article by Arabinda Ghose appeared in Feb 2006 issue of Organiser. A

computer expert, Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar has, it seems calculated the

astronomical positions as given in the epic and arrived at a date of birth

accordingly.

The article is here for whatever is its worth.

 

 

Controversy

Is Ramayana a mere epic or part of India's ancient history?

By Arabinda Ghose

 

Most of the Hindus of India and Nepal as also of countries where

emigrant Hindus live in sizeable numbers celebrate Ram Navami, which

falls on the ninth day of the bright half of the lunar month of

Chaitra, corresponding to March-April of the Georgian calendar.

Countries of South-East Asia such as Thailand too revere Lord Rama and

the predominantly Muslim nation of Indonesia celebrates Ramayana as a

ballet.

 

The Valmiki Ramayana in Sanskrit as also the Tulsi Ramayana by

Saint Tulsidas in Hindi are extremely popular volumes throughout India

and abroad. But is Ramayana a description of the lives and times of

Lord Rama and the Raghukul (the descendants of King Raghu) and the

times during an unknown period of India's ancient " history " or is it

nothing but an epic which, Hindus believe to be a true account of the

events in ancient India?

 

Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar, who is a computer expert, claims that

he has not only calculated the exact date and time of Lord Rama's

birth, but all happenings in his life till his age of 39 years, when he

had returned to Ayodhya after slaying Ravana. According to him Lord

Rama was born at 12.30 p.m. on January 10, 5114 b.c. Shri Bhatnagar has

relied entirely on the positions of the sun, the moon and the planets,

visible to the naked eye those days, described by Sage Valmiki in his

Ramayana for calculating the day and even time of many of the events in

the life of Lord Rama.

 

This article is merely a rewriting of the letter of Shri

Bhatnagar published by Asian Agri History, dated October-December,

2004, a magazine which is devoted to discovering and writing about the

ancient systems of agriculture that was in vogue in the Asian region in

ancient times.

 

A computer specialist claims firm dates of Ramayana, says Lord Rama was born in

5114 b.c.

 

The following is the extract of the letter:

 

" Moving forward, it has been stated that on the Amavasya (new

moon day) of the 10th month of the 13th year of his exile he (had)

fought Khar and Dushan and on that day, a solar eclipse was seen from

Panchawati. Not only had a solar eclipse occurred that day, but the

planets too were arranged in the sky in a particular manner (that day).

Six months later, when Rama (had) killed Bali on the Amavasya of Ashadh

(June-July) of the 14th year of (his) exile, another solar eclipse was

visible in the morning sky and after five months, when Hanuman went to

meet Sita in Lanka, a lunar eclipse was witnessed in the evening.

Besides these, several other planetary positions have been mentioned at

different other places.

 

" It is important to know that planetary positions keep (on)

changing every day in the sky and they do not repeat (the same

positions) for lakhs of years. Moreover, if we know the position of all

the planets in the sky, they refer to one and only one date in history.

 

" The effort to provide dates to the planetary positions

mentioned in (the) Ramayana and other Vedic literature began with (the)

legendary Bal Gangadhar Tilak in his well-known book The Orion.

However, the efforts made so far were based on manual computations.

Since one revolution of these planets is completed in a highly complex

fractional number (apparently the author refers to the period of the

revolution of these planets around the sun and of the rotations on

their axes), it is difficult to arrive at the accurate day and time in

history (when these events had taken place). But in the late 1990s,

many (computer) software were developed (in order) to track the

positions of the planets in the sky and with these software, (the)

planets' position at any given point of time in the sky can be known.

 

" By using a powerful planetarium software, I found that the

planetary positions mentioned in the Ramayana for the date of the birth

of Lord Rama had occurred in the sky at 12.30 p.m. on January 10, 5114

b.c. It was the ninth day of the Shukla Paksha of Chaitra (March-April)

month too. Moving forward, after 25 years of the birth of Lord Rama,

the position of (the) planets in the sky tallies with their description

in the Ramayana. Again, on the Amavasya of the 10th month of the 13th

year of exile, the solar eclipse had indeed occurred and the particular

arrangement of (the) planets in the sky was visible. (Date comes to

October 7, 5077 b.c.). Even the occurrence of the subsequent two

eclipses also tally with the respective descriptions in (the) Valmiki

Ramayana. Date of Hanuman's meeting (with) Sita in Lanka was September

12, 5076, b.c. In this manner, the entire sequence of the planetary

positions gets verified and all the dates can be precisely determined. "

 

Is Ramayana a description of the lives

and times of Lord Rama and the Raghukul (the descendants of King Raghu)

and the times during an unknown period of India's ancient " history " or

is it nothing but an epic which, Hindus believe to be a true account of

the events in ancient India?

 

Shri Bhatnagar adds that the entire dating had been conducted

objectively because the software does not permit any manipulation and

the verses of the Ramayana were also free of any doubts. Leading

scientists and those in the field have appreciated this work. Since the

entire sequence tallies, it proves that all the observations in the

Ramayana were actual recordings and not conjectures.

 

Indologists suggest, Shri Bhatnagar says, that he should

produce some archaeological evidences in support of these dates because

for western historians, these dates are too old to be accepted. " By

God's grace " he says, " I came across an interesting archaeological

evidence also " . He describes that evidence in the following paragraphs.

 

" About a few months ago, NASA (National Aeronautical and Space

Administration of the United States) had photographed an ancient bridge

like structure between India and Sri Lanka and stated that it appeared

to be man-made. Most of our historians and theologists jumped at the

story and said that it was related to Lord Rama. NASA denied having

made any statement regarding how the bridge got built, etc. The

enthusiasm died soon and nothing could be concluded since we were

trying to prove that it was built millions of years ago.

 

" Just analyse the situation " , said Shri Bhatnagar, " Suppose

you build your house with stones which are millions of years old. Does

your house also become millions of years old? The answer is a clear

No " .

 

" This was the mistake we were making while trying to claim the

ancient bridge and the antiquity of Lord Rama to millions of years ago.

Actually, the remains of the bridge, which Lord Rama had built, are

still available at a place called " Chedu Karai " in Tamil Nadu. Chedu

means setu (bridge) and karai means corner. Interestingly, the remains

of the bridge are available at the depth of ten feet below the water

and these are about 1.5 kilometres inside the sea.

 

Valmiki mentions that six months

later, when Rama (had) killed Bali on the Amavasya of Ashadh

(June-July) of the 14th year of (his) exile, another solar eclipse was

visible in the morning sky and after five months, when Hanuman went to

meet Sita in Lanka, a lunar eclipse was witnessed in the evening.

Besides these, several other planetary positions have been mentioned at

different other places.

 

" We are all aware that the rise of sea level, ever since the

end of the last ice age (about 16,000 b.c.) is a continuous phenomenon.

Countries like the USA and Australia which are having large coast lines

and large cities on the coasts are making emergency plans to deal with

the constant and accelerated rise in sea level which threatens the

cities like New York.

 

" So, with the intention of studying the subject I went through

a number of research papers and tried to find the scientific data

available on the rise of sea-level over a period of time. I,

accordingly, sent a mail to one of the research scholars for data on

the rise of sea level over the last 7,000 years. And the rate of rise

of sea suggests that about 7,000 years ago, the sea level was exactly

about 10 feet below the present level.

 

Hence one can prove that the 'remains of the bridge' which are

about ten feet below the present sea level, are part of the bridge

which was built around 7,000 years ago. This is what works out to be

the date of era of Lord Rama astronomically. "

 

" One can imagine that at the time when Hanuman crossed the sea

and again the army crossed it, the sea level was about ten feet below

what we see today and at that time the sea was behind by about 1.5 to 2

km. In about 7,000 years, it has encroached the land by about two km.

All these findings, in a comprehensive manner have been published in a

book called Dating the Era of Lord Rama. " Regards

Neelam

[Guest guest]

Sorry Neelamji, I misspelt your name.Sunil K. BhattacharjyaSunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:32:18 AM Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

Dear Meelamji,

 

I had the occasion to browse through the first edition of Bhatnagar's book, which was published by Rupa a few years ago and that edition of his book did not mention any details of the Lord Rama's horoscope, as given in the Balakanda. He considered some other details from the Ramayana to arrive at his figure of the date of Lord Rama. I wrote to Bhatnagar at that time but he did not reply. If anybody has his book he can please check if the details of the birth of Lord Rama, as given in the Bala Kanda, had been incorporated in its next editon, if there is any.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT - i.e. "AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation." The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT. Hope this clarifies.Love and Regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the "Degree" into account in a"Rashi" when we talk of "Uccha" and "Neeccha". Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any "Degree" within a "Rashi". > > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharya

[Guest guest]

No issues Sunil ji, it happens. I think I also mis-spelt Sreeramji's name today. We are all writing in a hurry and realise the mistake after we hit the send button. I am sure all are gracious enough to ignore these unintentional errors.

RegardsNeelam2008/8/29 Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

Sorry Neelamji, I misspelt your name.Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:32:18 AM Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Meelamji,

 

I had the occasion to browse through the first edition of Bhatnagar's book, which was published by Rupa a few years ago and that edition of his book did not mention any details of the Lord Rama's horoscope, as given in the Balakanda. He considered some other details from the Ramayana to arrive at his figure of the date of Lord Rama. I wrote to Bhatnagar at that time but he did not reply. If anybody has his book he can please check if the details of the birth of Lord Rama, as given in the Bala Kanda, had been incorporated in its next editon, if there is any.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelam ji,

A discussion related to this article of " Pushkar Bhatnagar " happend

in this group earlier, and the article got posted here earlier

itself. I request you to search the archeive with the name " Pushkar

Bhatnagar " .

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, " neelam gupta "

<neelamgupta07 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadhji, Sunilji and group,

>

> Before this thread goes in slumber, let me add a bit of info which

I located

> sometime back.

> This article by Arabinda Ghose appeared in Feb 2006 issue of

Organiser. A

> computer expert, Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar has, it seems calculated the

> astronomical positions as given in the epic and arrived at a date

of birth

> accordingly.

> The article is here for whatever is its worth.

>

> * Controversy

> Is Ramayana a mere epic or part of India's ancient history? *

> * By Arabinda Ghose *

>

> Most of the Hindus of India and Nepal as also of countries where

emigrant

> Hindus live in sizeable numbers celebrate Ram Navami, which falls

on the

> ninth day of the bright half of the lunar month of Chaitra,

corresponding to

> March-April of the Georgian calendar. Countries of South-East Asia

such as

> Thailand too revere Lord Rama and the predominantly Muslim nation of

> Indonesia celebrates Ramayana as a ballet.

>

> The Valmiki Ramayana in Sanskrit as also the Tulsi Ramayana by Saint

> Tulsidas in Hindi are extremely popular volumes throughout India

and abroad.

> But is Ramayana a description of the lives and times of Lord Rama

and the

> Raghukul (the descendants of King Raghu) and the times during an

unknown

> period of India's ancient " history " or is it nothing but an epic

which,

> Hindus believe to be a true account of the events in ancient India?

>

> Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar, who is a computer expert, claims that he

has not

> only calculated the exact date and time of Lord Rama's birth, but

all

> happenings in his life till his age of 39 years, when he had

returned to

> Ayodhya after slaying Ravana. According to him Lord Rama was born

at 12.30

> p.m. on January 10, 5114 b.c. Shri Bhatnagar has relied entirely on

the

> positions of the sun, the moon and the planets, visible to the

naked eye

> those days, described by Sage Valmiki in his Ramayana for

calculating the

> day and even time of many of the events in the life of Lord Rama.

>

> This article is merely a rewriting of the letter of Shri Bhatnagar

published

> by Asian Agri History, dated October-December, 2004, a magazine

which is

> devoted to discovering and writing about the ancient systems of

agriculture

> that was in vogue in the Asian region in ancient times.

>

> A computer specialist claims firm dates of Ramayana, says Lord Rama

was born

> in 5114 b.c.

>

> *The following is the extract of the letter:*

>

> " Moving forward, it has been stated that on the Amavasya (new moon

day) of

> the 10th month of the 13th year of his exile he (had) fought Khar

and Dushan

> and on that day, a solar eclipse was seen from Panchawati. Not only

had a

> solar eclipse occurred that day, but the planets too were arranged

in the

> sky in a particular manner (that day). Six months later, when Rama

(had)

> killed Bali on the Amavasya of Ashadh (June-July) of the 14th year

of (his)

> exile, another solar eclipse was visible in the morning sky and

after five

> months, when Hanuman went to meet Sita in Lanka, a lunar eclipse was

> witnessed in the evening. Besides these, several other planetary

positions

> have been mentioned at different other places.

>

> " It is important to know that planetary positions keep (on)

changing every

> day in the sky and they do not repeat (the same positions) for

lakhs of

> years. Moreover, if we know the position of all the planets in the

sky, they

> refer to one and only one date in history.

>

> " The effort to provide dates to the planetary positions mentioned

in (the)

> Ramayana and other Vedic literature began with (the) legendary Bal

Gangadhar

> Tilak in his well-known book The Orion. However, the efforts made

so far

> were based on manual computations. Since one revolution of these

planets is

> completed in a highly complex fractional number (apparently the

author

> refers to the period of the revolution of these planets around the

sun and

> of the rotations on their axes), it is difficult to arrive at the

accurate

> day and time in history (when these events had taken place). But in

the late

> 1990s, many (computer) software were developed (in order) to track

the

> positions of the planets in the sky and with these software, (the)

planets'

> position at any given point of time in the sky can be known.

>

> " By using a powerful planetarium software, I found that the

planetary

> positions mentioned in the Ramayana for the date of the birth of

Lord Rama

> had occurred in the sky at 12.30 p.m. on January 10, 5114 b.c. It

was the

> ninth day of the Shukla Paksha of Chaitra (March-April) month too.

Moving

> forward, after 25 years of the birth of Lord Rama, the position of

(the)

> planets in the sky tallies with their description in the Ramayana.

Again, on

> the Amavasya of the 10th month of the 13th year of exile, the solar

eclipse

> had indeed occurred and the particular arrangement of (the) planets

in the

> sky was visible. (Date comes to October 7, 5077 b.c.). Even the

occurrence

> of the subsequent two eclipses also tally with the respective

descriptions

> in (the) Valmiki Ramayana. Date of Hanuman's meeting (with) Sita in

Lanka

> was September 12, 5076, b.c. In this manner, the entire sequence of

the

> planetary positions gets verified and all the dates can be precisely

> determined. "

>

> Is Ramayana a description of the lives and times of Lord Rama and

the

> Raghukul (the descendants of King Raghu) and the times during an

unknown

> period of India's ancient " history " or is it nothing but an epic

which,

> Hindus believe to be a true account of the events in ancient India?

>

> Shri Bhatnagar adds that the entire dating had been conducted

objectively

> because the software does not permit any manipulation and the

verses of the

> Ramayana were also free of any doubts. Leading scientists and those

in the

> field have appreciated this work. Since the entire sequence

tallies, it

> proves that all the observations in the Ramayana were actual

recordings and

> not conjectures.

>

> Indologists suggest, Shri Bhatnagar says, that he should produce

some

> archaeological evidences in support of these dates because for

western

> historians, these dates are too old to be accepted. " By God's

grace " he

> says, " I came across an interesting archaeological evidence also " .

He

> describes that evidence in the following paragraphs.

>

> " About a few months ago, NASA (National Aeronautical and Space

> Administration of the United States) had photographed an ancient

bridge like

> structure between India and Sri Lanka and stated that it appeared

to be

> man-made. Most of our historians and theologists jumped at the

story and

> said that it was related to Lord Rama. NASA denied having made any

statement

> regarding how the bridge got built, etc. The enthusiasm died soon

and

> nothing could be concluded since we were trying to prove that it

was built

> millions of years ago.

>

> " Just analyse the situation " , said Shri Bhatnagar, " Suppose you

build your

> house with stones which are millions of years old. Does your house

also

> become millions of years old? The answer is a clear No " .

>

> " This was the mistake we were making while trying to claim the

ancient

> bridge and the antiquity of Lord Rama to millions of years ago.

Actually,

> the remains of the bridge, which Lord Rama had built, are still

available at

> a place called " Chedu Karai " in Tamil Nadu. Chedu means setu

(bridge) and

> karai means corner. Interestingly, the remains of the bridge are

available

> at the depth of ten feet below the water and these are about 1.5

kilometres

> inside the sea.

>

> Valmiki mentions that six months later, when Rama (had) killed Bali

on the

> Amavasya of Ashadh (June-July) of the 14th year of (his) exile,

another

> solar eclipse was visible in the morning sky and after five months,

when

> Hanuman went to meet Sita in Lanka, a lunar eclipse was witnessed

in the

> evening. Besides these, several other planetary positions have been

> mentioned at different other places.

>

> " We are all aware that the rise of sea level, ever since the end of

the last

> ice age (about 16,000 b.c.) is a continuous phenomenon. Countries

like the

> USA and Australia which are having large coast lines and large

cities on the

> coasts are making emergency plans to deal with the constant and

accelerated

> rise in sea level which threatens the cities like New York.

>

> " So, with the intention of studying the subject I went through a

number of

> research papers and tried to find the scientific data available on

the rise

> of sea-level over a period of time. I, accordingly, sent a mail to

one of

> the research scholars for data on the rise of sea level over the

last 7,000

> years. And the rate of rise of sea suggests that about 7,000 years

ago, the

> sea level was exactly about 10 feet below the present level.

>

> Hence one can prove that the 'remains of the bridge' which are

about ten

> feet below the present sea level, are part of the bridge which was

built

> around 7,000 years ago. This is what works out to be the date of

era of Lord

> Rama astronomically. "

>

> " One can imagine that at the time when Hanuman crossed the sea and

again the

> army crossed it, the sea level was about ten feet below what we see

today

> and at that time the sea was behind by about 1.5 to 2 km. In about

7,000

> years, it has encroached the land by about two km. All these

findings, in a

> comprehensive manner have been published in a book called Dating

the Era of

> Lord Rama. "

> Regards

> Neelam

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Imp: Please don't send mails as attachments, since the does not store attachements. As a result, people like me who read messages from from web on group will not be able to read such such mails. (I this case I have to check the individuals mails posted to another account to get this mail). Please remember this while posting messages. Now coming to your mail content - * Sun can not be in Mesha when it is Punarvasu Nakshatra and Navami Tithi. (Check for the calculations in the archieves - on discussion about the same) * In Ramayana context the word 'Lagna' means "Sign" and NOT Ascendent. (Clarification given earlier - check the archieves) * The word 'Kuleera' refers to 'Capricon' in Ramayana context. (Clarification given earlier - check the archieves) * //Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta// This is an information which is NOT present in Valimiki Ramayana. (We simply don't know the Ascendent)//I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the lines of the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati". According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.// Can you eloborate your 'Ankanam Vamato gati' based argument. For those who don't know what "Ankanam Vamato gati" is - It Means, Numbers should be counted from left to right. This is a rule related to Katapayadi (KTPY) Number system originated possibily by Vararuchi while he was in Kerala around AD 4th century. //> I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it is based.// Even though the base and elaboration of the whole of my argument regarding the same is available in the archieves (clarified during the discussion happened related to the same in this group), I will try to present them as a whole in a single pdf document as the time permits - as of now you can search the archieves with the words - "Birth of Rama" Sreenadh - and easly locate those messages posted by me. Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Shreenadhji,> > Further the Lagna was Kark as Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta (at noon).> > Regards> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Friday, August 29, 2008 12:01:58 AM> Re: Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > > > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > I have not read Brihat Prajapatya. I read quite some years a Bengali book which covered this subject. I think its name was Jatak Kaumudi. Neither I have the book with me now nor I should dare to think of pitting it against the Brihat Prajapatya, even if I would have had it with me. You are a scholar in Jyotish shastra and I do not claim to be so. Our discussion started with the dating of Lord Rama and I believe that the Graha positions at the time of the birth of Lord Rama were as follows:> > Surya-----------0 to 1 degree in Mesh (Sun just reached Mesh)> Chandra --------0 to 3 degree in Kark (Moon in punarvasu)(Own house)> Mangal----------28 degree in Makar (Uccha)> Budh----------- in Mesh (Budhaditya yoga)> Brihaspati-------5 degree in Kark (Uccha)> Shukra----------27 degree in Meen (Uccha)> Shani-----------20 degree in Tula (Uccha)> > I believe that Lord Rama lived in the Treta yuga and near the junction of Treta and Dwapara yuga as said in the Mahabharata and I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the lines of the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati". According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.> > This is just my own conviction but I shall not like anybody to take my word for it nor I wish to enter into any argument for validation of this date, as I have already clarified the premises. Anybody can reject it if he wants to. One must do his homework and get convinced of whatever date one arrives at.> > I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it is based.> > Regards and all the best,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sreenadh sreesog > Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55:11 PM> Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT -> i.e. "AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation."> The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT. Hope this clarifies.> Love and Regards,> Sreenadh> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the "Degree" into account in a"Rashi" when we talk of "Uccha" and "Neeccha". Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any "Degree" within a "Rashi". > > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharya>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhattacharjya,

According to your calculations , maximum angular distance between Sun and Moon

92 deg.

Lord Rama was born on Sukla Nabmi(9), thus their angular distance should not be less than 96 deg

(12*8)=96.

How are you going to cover this anomoly.

Regarda,

 

 

G.K.GOEL

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Friday, 29 August, 2008 12:38:34 PM Re:Date of Ramayana and MahabharataDear Shreenadhji,Further the Lagna was Kark as Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta (at noon).RegardsSunil K. BhattacharjyaSunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:01:58 AMRe: Re:Date of

Ramayana and MahabharataDear Sreenadhji,I have not read Brihat Prajapatya. I read quite some years a Bengali book which covered this subject. I think its name was Jatak Kaumudi. Neither I have the book with me now nor I should dare to think of pitting it against the Brihat Prajapatya, even if I would have had it with me. You are a scholar in Jyotish shastra and I do not claim to be so. Our discussion started with the dating of Lord Rama and I believe that the Graha positions at the time of the birth of Lord Rama were as follows:Surya-----------0 to 1 degree in Mesh (Sun just reached Mesh)Chandra --------0 to 3 degree in Kark (Moon in punarvasu)(Own house)Mangal----------28 degree in Makar (Uccha)Budh----------- in Mesh (Budhaditya yoga)Brihaspati-------5 degree in Kark (Uccha)Shukra----------27 degree in Meen (Uccha)Shani-----------20 degree in Tula (Uccha)I believe that Lord

Rama lived in the Treta yuga and near the junction of Treta and Dwapara yuga as said in the Mahabharata and I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the lines of the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati". According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.This is just my own conviction but I shall not like anybody to take my word for it nor I wish to enter into any argument for validation of this date, as I have already clarified the premises. Anybody can reject it if he wants to. One must do his homework and get convinced of whatever date one arrives at.I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it is based.Regards and all the best,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya----- Original

Message ----Sreenadh <sreesog Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55:11 PM Re:Date of Ramayana and MahabharataDear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT -i.e. "AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation." The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT. Hope this clarifies.Love

and Regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the "Degree" into account in a"Rashi" when we talk of "Uccha" and "Neeccha". Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any "Degree" within a "Rashi". > > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharya

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhattacharjya,

According to your calculations , maximum angular distance between Sun and Moon

92 deg.

Lord Rama was born on Sukla Nabmi(9), thus their angular distance should not be less than 96 deg

(12*8)=96.

How are you going to cover this anomoly.

Regarda,

 

 

G.K.GOEL

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Friday, 29 August, 2008 12:38:34 PM Re:Date of Ramayana and MahabharataDear Shreenadhji,Further the Lagna was Kark as Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta (at noon).RegardsSunil K. BhattacharjyaSunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:01:58 AMRe: Re:Date of

Ramayana and MahabharataDear Sreenadhji,I have not read Brihat Prajapatya. I read quite some years a Bengali book which covered this subject. I think its name was Jatak Kaumudi. Neither I have the book with me now nor I should dare to think of pitting it against the Brihat Prajapatya, even if I would have had it with me. You are a scholar in Jyotish shastra and I do not claim to be so. Our discussion started with the dating of Lord Rama and I believe that the Graha positions at the time of the birth of Lord Rama were as follows:Surya-----------0 to 1 degree in Mesh (Sun just reached Mesh)Chandra --------0 to 3 degree in Kark (Moon in punarvasu)(Own house)Mangal----------28 degree in Makar (Uccha)Budh----------- in Mesh (Budhaditya yoga)Brihaspati-------5 degree in Kark (Uccha)Shukra----------27 degree in Meen (Uccha)Shani-----------20 degree in Tula (Uccha)I believe that Lord

Rama lived in the Treta yuga and near the junction of Treta and Dwapara yuga as said in the Mahabharata and I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the lines of the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati". According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.This is just my own conviction but I shall not like anybody to take my word for it nor I wish to enter into any argument for validation of this date, as I have already clarified the premises. Anybody can reject it if he wants to. One must do his homework and get convinced of whatever date one arrives at.I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it is based.Regards and all the best,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya----- Original

Message ----Sreenadh <sreesog Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55:11 PM Re:Date of Ramayana and MahabharataDear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT -i.e. "AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation." The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT. Hope this clarifies.Love

and Regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Sreenadhji,> > You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the "Degree" into account in a"Rashi" when we talk of "Uccha" and "Neeccha". Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any "Degree" within a "Rashi". > > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharya

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,Yes, the definition of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" is correct. As regards the rest, no comment.Regards,Sunil K. BhattacharjyaSreenadh <sreesog Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 1:05:56 AM Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Imp: Please don't send mails as attachments, since the does not store attachements. As a result, people like me who read messages from from web on group will not be able to read such such mails. (I this case I have to check the individuals mails posted to another account to get this mail). Please remember this while posting messages. Now coming to your mail content - * Sun can not be in Mesha when it is Punarvasu Nakshatra and Navami Tithi. (Check for the calculations in the archieves - on discussion about the same) * In Ramayana context the word 'Lagna' means "Sign" and NOT Ascendent. (Clarification given earlier - check the archieves) * The word

'Kuleera' refers to 'Capricon' in Ramayana context. (Clarification given earlier - check the archieves) * //Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta// This is an information which is NOT present in Valimiki Ramayana. (We simply don't know the Ascendent)//I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the lines of the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati". According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.// Can you eloborate your 'Ankanam Vamato gati' based argument. For those who don't know what "Ankanam Vamato gati" is - It Means, Numbers should be counted from left to right. This is a rule related to Katapayadi (KTPY) Number system originated possibily by Vararuchi while he was in Kerala

around AD 4th century. //> I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it is based.// Even though the base and elaboration of the whole of my argument regarding the same is available in the archieves (clarified during the discussion happened related to the same in this group), I will try to present them as a whole in a single pdf document as the time permits - as of now you can search the archieves with the words - "Birth of Rama" Sreenadh - and easly locate those messages posted by me. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Shreenadhji,> > Further the Lagna was Kark as Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta (at

noon).> > Regards> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya ancient_indian_ astrology> Friday, August 29, 2008 12:01:58 AM> Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > > > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > I have not read Brihat Prajapatya. I read quite some years a Bengali book which covered this subject. I think its name was Jatak Kaumudi. Neither I have the book with me now nor I should dare to think of pitting it against the Brihat Prajapatya, even if I would have had it with me. You are a scholar in Jyotish shastra and I do not claim to be so. Our discussion started with the dating of Lord Rama and I believe that the Graha positions at the time of the birth of Lord Rama were as follows:>

> Surya------- ----0 to 1 degree in Mesh (Sun just reached Mesh)> Chandra --------0 to 3 degree in Kark (Moon in punarvasu)(Own house)> Mangal------ ----28 degree in Makar (Uccha)> Budh-------- --- in Mesh (Budhaditya yoga)> Brihaspati-- -----5 degree in Kark (Uccha)> Shukra------ ----27 degree in Meen (Uccha)> Shani------- ----20 degree in Tula (Uccha)> > I believe that Lord Rama lived in the Treta yuga and near the junction of Treta and Dwapara yuga as said in the Mahabharata and I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the lines of the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati". According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.> > This is just my own conviction but I shall not like anybody to take my word for it nor I wish to enter into any argument for validation

of this date, as I have already clarified the premises. Anybody can reject it if he wants to. One must do his homework and get convinced of whatever date one arrives at.> > I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it is based.> > Regards and all the best,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > Sreenadh sreesog ancient_indian_ astrology> Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55:11 PM> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata> > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, > You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT -> i.e. "AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the direct deciple of Skanda the author

of Skanda hora) the word "Ucha" refers to Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word "Paramocha" refers to 'Maximum degree of exaltation" and this only points to the degree of exaltation."> The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT. Hope this clarifies.> Love and Regards,> Sreenadh> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > > You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the "Degree" into account in a"Rashi" when we talk of "Uccha" and "Neeccha". Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any "Degree" within a "Rashi". > > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharya>

[Guest guest]

Dear Goelji,

 

What according to you is the figure if the Sun is in 30 degree Meen? Rest after

hearing from you.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

Gopal Goel <gkgoel1937

 

Friday, August 29, 2008 7:13:13 AM

Re: Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Bhattacharjya,

According to your calculations , maximum angular distance between Sun and Moon

92 deg.

Lord Rama was born on Sukla Nabmi(9), thus their angular distance should not

be less than 96 deg

(12*8)=96.

How are you going to cover this anomoly.

Regarda,

 

 

G.K.GOEL

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

ancient_indian_ astrology

Friday, 29 August, 2008 12:38:34 PM

[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

Dear Shreenadhji,

 

Further the Lagna was Kark as Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta (at

noon).

 

Regards

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

ancient_indian_ astrology

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:01:58 AM

Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sreenadhji,

 

I have not read Brihat Prajapatya. I read quite some years a Bengali book which

covered this subject. I think its name was Jatak Kaumudi. Neither I have the

book with me now nor I should dare to think of pitting it against the Brihat

Prajapatya, even if I would have had it with me. You are a scholar in Jyotish

shastra and I do not claim to be so. Our discussion started with the dating of

Lord Rama and I believe that the Graha positions at the time of the birth of

Lord Rama were as follows:

 

Surya------- ----0 to 1 degree in Mesh (Sun just reached Mesh)

Chandra --------0 to 3 degree in Kark (Moon in punarvasu)(Own house)

Mangal------ ----28 degree in Makar (Uccha)

Budh-------- --- in Mesh (Budhaditya yoga)

Brihaspati-- -----5 degree in Kark (Uccha)

Shukra------ ----27 degree in Meen (Uccha)

Shani------- ----20 degree in Tula (Uccha)

 

I believe that Lord Rama lived in the Treta yuga and near the junction of Treta

and Dwapara yuga as said in the Mahabharata and I also believe in the Yuga

classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the

lines of the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " . According to this Lord Rama was

born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319

BCE.

 

This is just my own conviction but I shall not like anybody to take my word for

it nor I wish to enter into any argument for validation of this date, as I have

already clarified the premises. Anybody can reject it if he wants to. One must

do his homework and get convinced of whatever date one arrives at.

 

I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took

birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it

is based.

 

Regards and all the best,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

Sreenadh <sreesog >

ancient_indian_ astrology

Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55:11 PM

[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT -

i.e. " AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the

direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word " Ucha " refers to

Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word " Paramocha " refers to

'Maximum degree of exaltation " and this only points to the degree of

exaltation. "

The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT.

Hope this clarifies.

Love and Regards,

Sreenadh

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadhji,

>

> You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the

" Degree " into account in a " Rashi " when we talk of " Uccha " and " Neeccha " .

Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any " Degree " within a

" Rashi " .

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadhji,

 

About a week ago Avatarji had mentioned that one file on Atharva Veda Parisishta

is there in the file section. But I could not find it there. Would you mind

locating that and making it available to us if you are in the know of the

location of that.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sreenadh <sreesog

 

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:05:56 AM

Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

Imp: Please don't send mails as attachments, since the does not

store attachements. As a result, people like me who read messages from from web

on group will not be able to read such such mails. (I this case I have to check

the individuals mails posted to another account to get this mail). Please

remember this while posting messages.

 

Now coming to your mail content -

* Sun can not be in Mesha when it is Punarvasu Nakshatra and Navami Tithi.

(Check for the calculations in the archieves - on discussion about the same)

* In Ramayana context the word 'Lagna' means " Sign " and NOT Ascendent.

(Clarification given earlier - check the archieves)

* The word 'Kuleera' refers to 'Capricon' in Ramayana context. (Clarification

given earlier - check the archieves)

* //Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta// This is an information which

is NOT present in Valimiki Ramayana. (We simply don't know the Ascendent)

//I also believe in the Yuga classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana,

properly interpreted along the lines of the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " .

According to this Lord Rama was born prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My

estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.//

Can you eloborate your 'Ankanam Vamato gati' based argument. For those who

don't know what " Ankanam Vamato gati " is - It Means, Numbers should be counted

from left to right. This is a rule related to Katapayadi (KTPY) Number system

originated possibily by Vararuchi while he was in Kerala around AD 4th century.

//> I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took

birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it

is based.//

Even though the base and elaboration of the whole of my argument regarding the

same is available in the archieves (clarified during the discussion happened

related to the same in this group), I will try to present them as a whole in a

single pdf document as the time permits - as of now you can search the archieves

with the words - " Birth of Rama " Sreenadh - and easly locate those messages

posted by me.

 

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Shreenadhji,

>

> Further the Lagna was Kark as Lord Rama was born at the Abhijit Muhurta (at

noon).

>

> Regards

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> Friday, August 29, 2008 12:01:58 AM

> Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Sreenadhji,

>

> I have not read Brihat Prajapatya. I read quite some years a Bengali book

which covered this subject. I think its name was Jatak Kaumudi. Neither I have

the book with me now nor I should dare to think of pitting it against the Brihat

Prajapatya, even if I would have had it with me. You are a scholar in Jyotish

shastra and I do not claim to be so. Our discussion started with the dating of

Lord Rama and I believe that the Graha positions at the time of the birth of

Lord Rama were as follows:

>

> Surya------- ----0 to 1 degree in Mesh (Sun just reached Mesh)

> Chandra --------0 to 3 degree in Kark (Moon in punarvasu)(Own house)

> Mangal------ ----28 degree in Makar (Uccha)

> Budh-------- --- in Mesh (Budhaditya yoga)

> Brihaspati-- -----5 degree in Kark (Uccha)

> Shukra------ ----27 degree in Meen (Uccha)

> Shani------- ----20 degree in Tula (Uccha)

>

> I believe that Lord Rama lived in the Treta yuga and near the junction of

Treta and Dwapara yuga as said in the Mahabharata and I also believe in the Yuga

classification as given in the Bhagawat Purana, properly interpreted along the

lines of the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " . According to this Lord Rama was born

prior to 3102 + 3600 = 6702 BCE. My estimate is that he was born in 7319 BCE.

>

> This is just my own conviction but I shall not like anybody to take my word

for it nor I wish to enter into any argument for validation of this date, as I

have already clarified the premises. Anybody can reject it if he wants to. One

must do his homework and get convinced of whatever date one arrives at.

>

> I shall be glad if you also kindly let us know when you think Lord Rama took

birth and it will be still better if you wish to give the premises on which it

is based.

>

> Regards and all the best,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

>

> Sreenadh sreesog

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:55:11 PM

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Date of Ramayana and Mahabharata

>

>

> Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

> You agree or disagree - what I wanted to convay was a FACT -

> i.e. " AS per the ancient text Brihat Prajaptya by the Deksha Prajapati (the

direct deciple of Skanda the author of Skanda hora) the word " Ucha " refers to

Exaltation and this points to the WHOLE SIGN and the word " Paramocha " refers to

'Maximum degree of exaltation " and this only points to the degree of

exaltation. "

> The fact that the Ancient text Brihat Prajapatya tells this remains a FACT.

Hope this clarifies.

> Love and Regards,

> Sreenadh

> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadhji,

> >

> > You will have to pardon me as I cannot agree that we need not take the

" Degree " into account in a " Rashi " when we talk of " Uccha " and " Neeccha " .

Astronomical dating cannot be precise by imagining any " Degree " within a

" Rashi " .

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharya

>