Date of Mahabharata

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunilji,

 

thank you for the nice mail. We will keep in touch.

 

regards,

 

Kishore patnaik

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil ji,

 

Yes I have read it as 24000 only.

 

regards/Bhaskar.

[Guest guest]

They are hand written notes in Hindi. I will translate and type them

when I get time.

 

-VJ

, " kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> Dear VJ,

>

> Can you please post the 19 pages mentioned by you? Alternatively,

you can

> please send them to me offlist.

>

> thanks in advance,

>

> best regards,

>

> Kishore patnaik

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:05 PM, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee first. I've

> > posted my message there, saying that only the astronomy known to Vyas

> > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should not be

> > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of

> > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single

> > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no hurry.

> >

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > --- In

<%40.\

com>,

> > " Bhaskar "

> > <rajiventerprises@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay ji,

> > >

> > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.

> > >

> > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who has done

> > > studies in such subjects.

> > >

> > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not question it.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In

<%40.\

com>,

> > " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > @Bhaskar jee :-

> > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in the

initial

> > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present

Kalpa(Creation).

> > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras, each manvantara having 71

mahaayugas.

> > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali. This

> > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.

> > > >

> > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa, avasarpini

> > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has elapsed in

2000

> > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human

population has

> > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current

demographers

> > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be

quietened when

> > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is silently

> > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of Saurpakshiya

> > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- In

<%40.\

com>,

> > " Bhaskar "

> > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit and am

> > > amazed at

> > > > > same.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just a laymans query -

> > > > >

> > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga Theory ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- In

<%40.\

com>,

> > " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly,

about the

> > > basis

> > > > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the JNU

brand

> > > of

> > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at all),

nor with

> > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga

(after 3101

> > > BC).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- In

<%40.\

com>,

> > " prafulla Vaman

> > > > > > Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear friends

> > > > > > > My book " Mahabharata Yuddhakal " and date of Mahabharata war

> > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13, solar

eclipse

> > > at

> > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi

Newspaper

> > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008

,under column

> > > > > > > " Kutuhal " .

> > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@

> > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476

> > > > > > > (English book also available)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

 

Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

Why tamper with ancient idesa?

 

-VJ

 

 

, " Bhaskar "

<rajiventerprises wrote:

>

> Dear Sunil ji,

>

> Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

> Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

>

> regards,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay ji,

 

You are a respectable person with whom I would like to discuss but am

incompetent in your subject to have a technical dialouge with you.

 

You are nowhere said as being wrong.

 

Neither by accepting theory of someone else we say that he is right and

someone else is wrong.

 

The ancient time cycle cannot be wrong, except our interpretation of the

same, the texts, the shlokas - can be vulnerable to being assessed

wrongly.

 

We are open to all theories unless proved otherwise.

 

No one can say that he has found the ultimate truth. Nalanda University

was burning for 6 months due to Mughal invasions and what has come to us

may perhaps be the memorised stock of the shlokas which the Pundits of

those days have written after fleeing to Himalayas to save themselves

from being converted to Moslems.

 

I will come back to you when I am able to learn basics of what you are a

Master at.

 

best wishes,

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

> which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

> sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

> exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

> is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

> me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

>

> Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

> They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

> value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

> drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

> Why tamper with ancient idesa?

>

> -VJ

>

>

> , " Bhaskar "

> rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sunil ji,

> >

> > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

> > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayji,

 

I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by Bhagavat Puran

also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of Satya:Treta:Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1

Those who are not aware of the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " interprets it to

be 4 to3 to 2 to1 whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala

is given in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number

dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the span of the

Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the moment I do not have

immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are really not able to locate in

these puranas I shall surely take an extra effort to provide them to you.

 

Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the span of the

Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga should have been over in

3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has

been accepted as an Avatara in the Kaliyuga. They could not solve this

discrepancy and that is why they invented the concept that this figure of  1200

should be multiplied by 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000

years for Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be

multiplied by 360 to arrive at the  human years.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

 

Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

Why tamper with ancient idesa?

 

-VJ

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar "

<rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Sunil ji,

>

> Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

> Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

>

> regards,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

Sunil jee said : " Those who are not aware of the rule " Ankaanaam

Vaamato Gati " interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 "

 

I may not be aware of " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " , but all those

institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who

accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Vinay+Jha

 

Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of

the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting

Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,

I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of

all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.

Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of

yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was

rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.

 

-VJ

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>  

> I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by

Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of

Satya:Treta:Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the

rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1

whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given

in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number

dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the

span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the

moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are

really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an

extra effort to provide them to you.

>  

> Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the

span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga

should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of

Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the

Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they

invented the concept that this figure of  1200 should be multiplied by

360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for

Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be

multiplied by 360 to arrive at the  human years.

>  

> Regards,

>  

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

> Re: Date of Mahabharata

>

> Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM

I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

> which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

> sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

> exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

> is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

> me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

>

> Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

> They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

> value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

> drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

> Why tamper with ancient idesa?

>

> -VJ

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar "

> <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sunil ji,

> >

> > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

> > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayji,Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether all of them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" or not. You may be in for a big surprise.According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in its statements. Vishnu Purana supplements the same.As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by

Mayasura, who was from Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura. I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than for Astrology. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

wrote:vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Re: Date of Mahabharata Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM

 

Sunil jee said : "Those who are not aware of the rule "Ankaanaam

Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1"

 

I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all those

institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who

accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha

 

Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of

the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting

Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,

I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of

all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.

Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of

yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was

rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.

 

-VJ

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by

Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of

Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the

rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1

whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given

in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number

dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the

span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the

moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are

really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an

extra effort to provide them to you.

>

> Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the

span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga

should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of

Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the

Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they

invented the concept that this figure of 1200 should be multiplied by

360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for

Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be

multiplied by 360 to arrive at the human years.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

> ancient_indian_ astrology

> Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

> which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

> sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

> exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

> is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

> me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

>

> Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

> They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

> value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

> drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

> Why tamper with ancient idesa?

>

> -VJ

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"

> <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sunil ji,

> >

> > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

> > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

@Sunil jee : " Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars

whether all of them have heard about the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato

Gati " or not. You may be in for a big surprise. "

 

I had said " I may not be aware of " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " , but all

those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things

who accept me as an authority in these matters " .

 

Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks " Ankaanaam

Vaamato Gati " to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any

Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay

attention to his language. But I am now really surprized at him and

his interpretation of ancient texts.

 

Sunil jee also says : " I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to

update the astronomical data from time to time. "

 

I hope Sunil jee will illumine my dark mind about updating

Suryasiddhanta, esp because Burgess deliberately omitted from the

original text the 22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara needed for updating

Suryasiddhanta. No westernized scholar could ever understand or

translate those verses. I request Sunil jee to help me in understand

these 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional

publishers are still not ready to omit them.

 

All modern commentators followed Burgess, Stokingwoode and Wilkinson

in neglecting Suryasiddhantic Tables, just because they failed to

understand the Suryasiddhantic formulas used to construct these

tables. No available commentary mentions these ancient tables, which

are still used by a majority of traditional Hindu almanac (panchanga)

makers. I request Sunil jee to tell me the name of these ancient

Suryasiddhantic Tables, which are still alive but are famous in some

other name.

 

The " authorities " I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my

views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor

to organize shaastraartha for three days. But now, I learn from Sunil

jee that all of them, including me, are in for a big surprize for not

knowing the first things a student learns in a Sanskrit university.

Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati cannot be whimsically used to deduce whatever

one wants to. Sunil jee's notions of Time Cycles are contrary to the

views of all ancient astrological/astronomical and Puranic texts of

India. I have already explained the meaning of 12000 divine years

being equal to 4320000 human years in one of my recent posts, but

Sunil jee is sticking to his wrong views.

 

Hence, I invite him to teach me the ancient Tantra of Jyotisha which

is needed for constructing and updating Suryasiddhantic and other

tables. Please name that Tantra (Suryasiddhantic Tables). Those

ancient tables were called Tantra, and the mechanisms of constructing

these tables are known only to a few. Shaastraartha presupposes a

thorough study of shaastras. Come on Sunil jee, please illumine my

dark mind about the technique of ancient Indian astrology/astronomy.

Tantra is 'technique' ; show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic

tables which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence

in explaining them.

 

-VJ

==================== ====================

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether  all of

them  have heard about the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " or not. You

may be in for a big surprise.

>

> According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and

most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the

subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in

its statements.  Vishnu Purana supplements the same.

>

> As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of

mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy

of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a

copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the

Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I

believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from

Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura.  I understand that

Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to

time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into

Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than

for Astrology.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

> wrote:

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

> Re: Date of Mahabharata

>

> Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM

>

>

>

>

>

Sunil jee said : " Those who are not aware of the rule

" Ankaanaam

>

> Vaamato Gati " interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 "

>

>

>

> I may not be aware of " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " , but all those

>

> institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who

>

> accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.

>

> http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha

>

>

>

> Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of

>

> the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting

>

> Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,

>

> I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of

>

> all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.

>

> Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of

>

> yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was

>

> rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.

>

>

>

> -VJ

>

>

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

>

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Vinayji,

>

> >  

>

> > I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by

>

> Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of

>

> Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the

>

> rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1

>

> whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given

>

> in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number

>

> dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the

>

> span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the

>

> moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are

>

> really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an

>

> extra effort to provide them to you.

>

> >  

>

> > Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the

>

> span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga

>

> should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of

>

> Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the

>

> Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they

>

> invented the concept that this figure of  1200 should be multiplied by

>

> 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for

>

> Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be

>

> multiplied by 360 to arrive at the  human years.

>

> >  

>

> > Regards,

>

> >  

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

>

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

>

> > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

>

> > which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

>

> > sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

>

> > exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

>

> > is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

>

> > me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

>

> >

>

> > Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

>

> > They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

>

> > value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

>

> > drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

>

> > Why tamper with ancient idesa?

>

> >

>

> > -VJ

>

> >

>

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar "

>

> > <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sunil ji,

>

> > >

>

> > > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

>

> > > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

>

> > >

>

> > > regards,

>

> > >

>

> > > Bhaskar.

>

> > >

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear friend,

Without evidence and claiming 6th sense any jargon can be placed before anyone. One needs to be simply unscrupulous to do that. Those who know Sastras and those who teach sastras won't do such things. Your whole discussion is unscientific and contradicts well known scientific facts on evolution theory, fossil evidence, geological and geophysical findings. No sensible man having a grasp of the variation of the planetary elements with time, won't speak of 4200 million years etc and think of some astronomical i.e. rationale in terms of real observed planetary motion to such a long geological time.

I could also see some discussions like Varahamihira was a poor mathematician and astronomer etc. You don't know anything about Indian astronomy. If you knew anything about Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya or if you had any understanding of the precepts presented in Panchasiddhantika, you would not have made such a statement.

I think you are another fraud into the business of astrology and seeking a market for your product. Have you published any of your studies in any science Journals?

Are you a scientist or an engineer? Please give full details and the names of two referees who are aware of your scientific works? If you are product of the IITs please give the name and contact details of your peers so that one may check your antecdents.

This is the age of A_Satyam computers and we must be very careful while taking the statments of some people on face value. Be a bit vigilant.

Dear friends, don't start clapping when someone starts speaking hyperbole. Be a bit vigilant. Many of you not have the fundamentals clear - that is what the responses indicate. Science has a method. When someone speaks of Varahamihiar as a poor mathematician - please exercise your wisdom to ask the credentials of the guy.

chandra hari

, "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> A Mahayuga of 12000 divine years, divided into four yugas in the ratio> 4:3:2:1, has been wrongly interpreted by a moderner to mean 12000> human years. A divine year is equal to 360 human years.> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles does not take> place in this Saurpakshiya scheme which is the mainstream> Vedic-Puranic scheme best explained in Suryasiddhanta.> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles are mentioned> in Aryabhatiya. Suryasiddhanta has an unpublished Drikpakshiya side> which has this Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini)> cycles. In this, we have a Kalpa of 4200 million years, instead of> 4320 million years of Saurpakshiya Kalpa. One Drikpakshiya mahayuga> has 4200000 years. One Drikpakshiya Kaliyuga of 420000 years has ten> khanda-kalpas, each of 42000 years of avasarpini phase, followed with> 1200 years of utsarpini which conjoins it with the Saurpakshiya> counterpart. First utsarpini phase of present Kaliyuga commenced on> the Makar Samkranti of 2000 AD, which was perceived as Doomsday by> sinners who wrongly imagined themselves to be going to the Next Higher> World. Drikpakshiya Ganita is a closely guarded secret; its year is> equal to 365.250000000 days, as Bhaskar-II mentioned, coincidentally. > > Drikpakshiya and Saurpakshiya Kalpas can be translated as> physical/material/sensory world or Bhooloka and divine world or> Bhuvaloka. Humans live in the first, while the deities of Jyotisha> reside in the latter. Both universes have one Sun, one Moon,one Mars,> etc in each loka. Many ancient texts, following Vedic tradition as> well as Jain, speak of two Suns. Bhooloka has a material Sun at a ean> distance of 1496 lakh Kms. Bhuvaloka has a divine Sun at a distance of> 55 lakh Kms. It is this divine Sun which is the graha of Jyotisha. The> planets of Mahabharata are grahas of Bhuvaloka. All ancient> astrological texts as well as Vedas and Puranas explicitly call grahas> as deities and not as material bodies.> > It is another matter whether we accept or refuse the existence of> Bhuvaloka, just because our five senses cannot perceive it. What I> want to emphasize here is that we should judge the events of> Mahabharata and Puranas on the basis of accepted notions of those> days, and should not impose our philistine materialism upon the rishis> who composed those texts.> > -VJ> ======= ================ ================== ===========> > , "Bhaskar"> rajiventerprises@ wrote:> >> > > > Dear Vinay jee,> > > > But are we sure , we know the astronomy as known by Vyas ji ?> > > > Does the following scheme fit in Vyasjis asronomy ?> > > > 1200 Years of KaliYuga .> > > > 2400 Years of Dwapara Yuga ?> > > > 3600 Years of Treta Yuga ?> > > > 4800 Years of Sata Yuga ?> > > > Completing 12000 years revolution of Sun, in ascending arc, and another> > 12000 years in descending arc ?> > > > I am not aware of such nuances, hence asking you.> > > > regards,> > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > >> > > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee first. I've> > > posted my message there, saying that only the astronomy known to Vyas> > > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should not be> > > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of> > > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single> > > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no hurry.> > >> > > -VJ> > >> > > , "Bhaskar"> > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Vinay ji,> > > >> > > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.> > > >> > > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who has done> > > > studies in such subjects.> > > >> > > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not question it.> > > >> > > > regards,> > > >> > > > Bhaskar.> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > @Bhaskar jee :-> > > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in the> > initial> > > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present> > Kalpa(Creation).> > > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras, each manvantara having 71> > mahaayugas.> > > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali. This> > > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.> > > > >> > > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa, avasarpini> > > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has elapsed in> > 2000> > > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human population> > has> > > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current> > demographers> > > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be quietened> > when> > > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is silently> > > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of Saurpakshiya> > > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.> > > > >> > > > > -VJ> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "Bhaskar"> > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,> > > > > >> > > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit and am> > > > amazed at> > > > > > same.> > > > > >> > > > > > Just a laymans query -> > > > > >> > > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga Theory ?> > > > > >> > > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?> > > > > >> > > > > > regards,> > > > > >> > > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly, about> > the> > > > basis> > > > > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the JNU> > brand> > > > of> > > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at all), nor> > with> > > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga (after> > 3101> > > > BC).> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > >> > > > > > > , "prafulla> > Vaman> > > > > > > Mendki" prafulla_mendki@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear friends> > > > > > > > My book "Mahabharata Yuddhakal" and date of Mahabharata war> > > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13, solar> > eclipse> > > > at> > > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi> > Newspaper> > > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008 ,under> > column> > > > > > > > "Kutuhal".> > > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@> > > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476> > > > > > > > (English book also available)> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Who is the Vice - Chancellor? Which University? Which is the high court judgment you are referring to? What are those 22 verses omitted by Burgess and in which edition those 22 verses can be seen?

What are you speaking about Suryasiddhanta? Have you published any studies on Suryasiddhanta? Where? Can you give the copies of your studies?

The "authorities" I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my> views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor> to organize shaastraartha for three days

If you have no such works to share - about whose recognition are you speaking of? Who has recognized you? And who are you?

chandra hari

 

, "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> @Sunil jee :"Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars> whether all of them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato> Gati" or not. You may be in for a big surprise."> > I had said "I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all> those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things> who accept me as an authority in these matters".> > Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks "Ankaanaam> Vaamato Gati" to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any> Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay> attention to his language. But I am now really surprized at him and> his interpretation of ancient texts. > > Sunil jee also says :"I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to> update the astronomical data from time to time."> > I hope Sunil jee will illumine my dark mind about updating> Suryasiddhanta, esp because Burgess deliberately omitted from the> original text the 22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara needed for updating> Suryasiddhanta. No westernized scholar could ever understand or> translate those verses. I request Sunil jee to help me in understand> these 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional> publishers are still not ready to omit them. > > All modern commentators followed Burgess, Stokingwoode and Wilkinson> in neglecting Suryasiddhantic Tables, just because they failed to> understand the Suryasiddhantic formulas used to construct these> tables. No available commentary mentions these ancient tables, which> are still used by a majority of traditional Hindu almanac (panchanga)> makers. I request Sunil jee to tell me the name of these ancient> Suryasiddhantic Tables, which are still alive but are famous in some> other name.> > The "authorities" I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my> views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor> to organize shaastraartha for three days. But now, I learn from Sunil> jee that all of them, including me, are in for a big surprize for not> knowing the first things a student learns in a Sanskrit university.> Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati cannot be whimsically used to deduce whatever> one wants to. Sunil jee's notions of Time Cycles are contrary to the> views of all ancient astrological/astronomical and Puranic texts of> India. I have already explained the meaning of 12000 divine years> being equal to 4320000 human years in one of my recent posts, but> Sunil jee is sticking to his wrong views. > > Hence, I invite him to teach me the ancient Tantra of Jyotisha which> is needed for constructing and updating Suryasiddhantic and other> tables. Please name that Tantra (Suryasiddhantic Tables). Those> ancient tables were called Tantra, and the mechanisms of constructing> these tables are known only to a few. Shaastraartha presupposes a> thorough study of shaastras. Come on Sunil jee, please illumine my> dark mind about the technique of ancient Indian astrology/astronomy.> Tantra is 'technique' ; show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic> tables which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence> in explaining them.> > -VJ> ==================== ==================== > , Sunil Bhattacharjya> sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote:> >> > Dear Vinayji,> > > > Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether all of> them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" or not. You> may be in for a big surprise.> > > > According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and> most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the> subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in> its statements. Vishnu Purana supplements the same.> > > > As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of> mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy> of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a> copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the> Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I> believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from> Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura. I understand that> Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to> time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into> Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than> for Astrology. > > > > Regards,> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16@> > wrote:> > vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16@> > Re: Date of Mahabharata> > > > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil jee said : "Those who are not aware of the rule> "Ankaanaam> > > > Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1"> > > > > > > > I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all those> > > > institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who> > > > accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha> > > > > > > > Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of> > > > the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting> > > > Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,> > > > I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of> > > > all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.> > > > Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of> > > > yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was> > > > rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.> > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya> > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Vinayji,> > > > > > > > > > I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by> > > > Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of> > > > Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the> > > > rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1> > > > whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given> > > > in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number> > > > dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the> > > > span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the> > > > moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are> > > > really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an> > > > extra effort to provide them to you.> > > > > > > > > > Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the> > > > span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga> > > > should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of> > > > Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the> > > > Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they> > > > invented the concept that this figure of 1200 should be multiplied by> > > > 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for> > > > Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be> > > > multiplied by 360 to arrive at the human years.> > > > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years> > > > > which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient> > > > > sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole> > > > > exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana> > > > > is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show> > > > > me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).> > > > > > > > > > Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.> > > > > They are too much impressed with present day material progress to> > > > > value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must> > > > > drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.> > > > > Why tamper with ancient idesa?> > > > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> > > > > <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Sunil ji,> > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current> > > > > > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.> > > > > >> > > > > > regards,> > > > > >> > > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > >> > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandra Hari ji,Good to see you coming out of your hibernation. Most of us are are not competent and qualified to debate on such serious mathematical issues and anyone can take advantage by using technical jargon as has been going on for the past few days. I could not understand the real purpose of these discussions, except pedaling some particular software.

RegardsNeelam2009/1/7 chandra_hari18 <chandra_hari18

 

 

 

 

Dear friend,

Without evidence and claiming 6th sense any jargon can be placed before anyone. One needs to be simply unscrupulous to do that. Those who know Sastras and those who teach sastras won't do such things. Your whole discussion is unscientific and contradicts well known scientific facts on evolution theory, fossil evidence, geological and geophysical findings. No sensible man having a grasp of the variation of the planetary elements with time, won't speak of 4200 million years etc and think of some astronomical i.e. rationale in terms of real observed planetary motion to such a long geological time.

I could also see some discussions like Varahamihira was a poor mathematician and astronomer etc. You don't know anything about Indian astronomy. If you knew anything about Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya or if you had any understanding of the precepts presented in Panchasiddhantika, you would not have made such a statement.

I think you are another fraud into the business of astrology and seeking a market for your product. Have you published any of your studies in any science Journals?

Are you a scientist or an engineer? Please give full details and the names of two referees who are aware of your scientific works? If you are product of the IITs please give the name and contact details of your peers so that one may check your antecdents.

This is the age of A_Satyam computers and we must be very careful while taking the statments of some people on face value. Be a bit vigilant.

Dear friends, don't start clapping when someone starts speaking hyperbole. Be a bit vigilant. Many of you not have the fundamentals clear - that is what the responses indicate. Science has a method. When someone speaks of Varahamihiar as a poor mathematician - please exercise your wisdom to ask the credentials of the guy.

chandra hari

, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> A Mahayuga of 12000 divine years, divided into four yugas in the ratio

> 4:3:2:1, has been wrongly interpreted by a moderner to mean 12000> human years. A divine year is equal to 360 human years.> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles does not take

> place in this Saurpakshiya scheme which is the mainstream> Vedic-Puranic scheme best explained in Suryasiddhanta.> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles are mentioned> in Aryabhatiya. Suryasiddhanta has an unpublished Drikpakshiya side

> which has this Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini)> cycles. In this, we have a Kalpa of 4200 million years, instead of> 4320 million years of Saurpakshiya Kalpa. One Drikpakshiya mahayuga

> has 4200000 years. One Drikpakshiya Kaliyuga of 420000 years has ten> khanda-kalpas, each of 42000 years of avasarpini phase, followed with> 1200 years of utsarpini which conjoins it with the Saurpakshiya

> counterpart. First utsarpini phase of present Kaliyuga commenced on> the Makar Samkranti of 2000 AD, which was perceived as Doomsday by> sinners who wrongly imagined themselves to be going to the Next Higher

> World. Drikpakshiya Ganita is a closely guarded secret; its year is> equal to 365.250000000 days, as Bhaskar-II mentioned, coincidentally. > > Drikpakshiya and Saurpakshiya Kalpas can be translated as

> physical/material/sensory world or Bhooloka and divine world or> Bhuvaloka. Humans live in the first, while the deities of Jyotisha> reside in the latter. Both universes have one Sun, one Moon,one Mars,

> etc in each loka. Many ancient texts, following Vedic tradition as> well as Jain, speak of two Suns. Bhooloka has a material Sun at a ean> distance of 1496 lakh Kms. Bhuvaloka has a divine Sun at a distance of

> 55 lakh Kms. It is this divine Sun which is the graha of Jyotisha. The> planets of Mahabharata are grahas of Bhuvaloka. All ancient> astrological texts as well as Vedas and Puranas explicitly call grahas

> as deities and not as material bodies.> > It is another matter whether we accept or refuse the existence of> Bhuvaloka, just because our five senses cannot perceive it. What I> want to emphasize here is that we should judge the events of

> Mahabharata and Puranas on the basis of accepted notions of those> days, and should not impose our philistine materialism upon the rishis> who composed those texts.> > -VJ> ======= ================ ================== ===========

> > , " Bhaskar " > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> >> >

> > Dear Vinay jee,> > > > But are we sure , we know the astronomy as known by Vyas ji ?> > > > Does the following scheme fit in Vyasjis asronomy ?> > > > 1200 Years of KaliYuga .

> > > > 2400 Years of Dwapara Yuga ?> > > > 3600 Years of Treta Yuga ?> > > > 4800 Years of Sata Yuga ?> > > > Completing 12000 years revolution of Sun, in ascending arc, and another

> > 12000 years in descending arc ?> > > > I am not aware of such nuances, hence asking you.> > > > regards,> > > > Bhaskar.> > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > >> > > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee first. I've> > > posted my message there, saying that only the astronomy known to Vyas

> > > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should not be> > > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of> > > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single

> > > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no hurry.> > >> > > -VJ> > >> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Vinay ji,> > > >> > > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.> > > >

> > > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who has done> > > > studies in such subjects.> > > >> > > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not question it.

> > > >> > > > regards,> > > >> > > > Bhaskar.> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > @Bhaskar jee :-> > > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in the> > initial

> > > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present> > Kalpa(Creation).> > > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras, each manvantara having 71> > mahaayugas.> > > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali. This

> > > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.> > > > >> > > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa, avasarpini> > > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has elapsed in

> > 2000> > > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human population> > has> > > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current> > demographers

> > > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be quietened> > when> > > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is silently> > > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of Saurpakshiya

> > > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.> > > > >> > > > > -VJ> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,> > > > > >> > > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit and am

> > > > amazed at> > > > > > same.> > > > > >> > > > > > Just a laymans query -> > > > > >> > > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga Theory ?

> > > > > >> > > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?> > > > > >> > > > > > regards,> > > > > >> > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly, about> > the> > > > basis

> > > > > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the JNU> > brand> > > > of> > > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at all), nor

> > with> > > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga (after> > 3101> > > > BC).> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > >> > > > > > > , " prafulla> > Vaman

> > > > > > > Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear friends> > > > > > > > My book " Mahabharata Yuddhakal " and date of Mahabharata war

> > > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13, solar> > eclipse> > > > at> > > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi

> > Newspaper> > > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008 ,under> > column> > > > > > > > " Kutuhal " .> > > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@

> > > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476> > > > > > > > (English book also available)> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >

> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandra Hari ji,

Not all responses are of approval. If You check my responses, you will find that I have not attacked, but not accepted too.

I do not like people who disgrace our ancestors and prove them wrong.

Because this is what Avtar Kishen kual does too.

Those who do this ,close all the doors of any logical discussions and inferences and acknowledgement of any findings done by the person who puts his ancestors down.

Varamihira was a great astrologer, and I will not accept anyone who puts him down, on face value. He will have to prove himsef better than Varamihira to put him down.

Most of the people let me say this frankly and honestly, who are on internet Forums, are those who are fed up of their family lives, and not having much professional duties, including myself, which is why they are here.

If they had been somebody, they would not have been here. They would not have had the time to write here after so much academic degrees credited to theri names.

These days the people who shout on the roof tops about their theories get heard. This is what is written in the Ramayana about the Kaliyuga. ( Now whether this is the Kaliyuga or the Dwapar, only God knows ).

But a precedent has been set since last few years. Talk bad about the ancestors and make yourself known, famous and smart.

So no wonder if somebody puts Varamihira down. They are the same sheep from the same flock.

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

, "chandra_hari18" <chandra_hari18 wrote:>> > Dear friend,> > Without evidence and claiming 6th sense any jargon can be placed before> anyone. One needs to be simply unscrupulous to do that. Those who know> Sastras and those who teach sastras won't do such things. Your whole> discussion is unscientific and contradicts well known scientific facts> on evolution theory, fossil evidence, geological and geophysical> findings. No sensible man having a grasp of the variation of the> planetary elements with time, won't speak of 4200 million years etc and> think of some astronomical i.e. rationale in terms of real observed> planetary motion to such a long geological time.> > I could also see some discussions like Varahamihira was a poor> mathematician and astronomer etc. You don't know anything about Indian> astronomy. If you knew anything about Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya or> if you had any understanding of the precepts presented in> Panchasiddhantika, you would not have made such a statement.> > I think you are another fraud into the business of astrology and seeking> a market for your product. Have you published any of your studies in any> science Journals?> > Are you a scientist or an engineer? Please give full details and the> names of two referees who are aware of your scientific works? If you are> product of the IITs please give the name and contact details of your> peers so that one may check your antecdents.> > This is the age of A_Satyam computers and we must be very careful while> taking the statments of some people on face value. Be a bit vigilant.> > Dear friends, don't start clapping when someone starts speaking> hyperbole. Be a bit vigilant. Many of you not have the fundamentals> clear - that is what the responses indicate. Science has a method. When> someone speaks of Varahamihiar as a poor mathematician - please exercise> your wisdom to ask the credentials of the guy.> > chandra hari> > > , "vinayjhaa16"> vinayjhaa16@ wrote:> >> > A Mahayuga of 12000 divine years, divided into four yugas in the ratio> > 4:3:2:1, has been wrongly interpreted by a moderner to mean 12000> > human years. A divine year is equal to 360 human years.> >> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles does not take> > place in this Saurpakshiya scheme which is the mainstream> > Vedic-Puranic scheme best explained in Suryasiddhanta.> >> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles are mentioned> > in Aryabhatiya. Suryasiddhanta has an unpublished Drikpakshiya side> > which has this Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini)> > cycles. In this, we have a Kalpa of 4200 million years, instead of> > 4320 million years of Saurpakshiya Kalpa. One Drikpakshiya mahayuga> > has 4200000 years. One Drikpakshiya Kaliyuga of 420000 years has ten> > khanda-kalpas, each of 42000 years of avasarpini phase, followed with> > 1200 years of utsarpini which conjoins it with the Saurpakshiya> > counterpart. First utsarpini phase of present Kaliyuga commenced on> > the Makar Samkranti of 2000 AD, which was perceived as Doomsday by> > sinners who wrongly imagined themselves to be going to the Next Higher> > World. Drikpakshiya Ganita is a closely guarded secret; its year is> > equal to 365.250000000 days, as Bhaskar-II mentioned, coincidentally.> >> > Drikpakshiya and Saurpakshiya Kalpas can be translated as> > physical/material/sensory world or Bhooloka and divine world or> > Bhuvaloka. Humans live in the first, while the deities of Jyotisha> > reside in the latter. Both universes have one Sun, one Moon,one Mars,> > etc in each loka. Many ancient texts, following Vedic tradition as> > well as Jain, speak of two Suns. Bhooloka has a material Sun at a ean> > distance of 1496 lakh Kms. Bhuvaloka has a divine Sun at a distance of> > 55 lakh Kms. It is this divine Sun which is the graha of Jyotisha. The> > planets of Mahabharata are grahas of Bhuvaloka. All ancient> > astrological texts as well as Vedas and Puranas explicitly call grahas> > as deities and not as material bodies.> >> > It is another matter whether we accept or refuse the existence of> > Bhuvaloka, just because our five senses cannot perceive it. What I> > want to emphasize here is that we should judge the events of> > Mahabharata and Puranas on the basis of accepted notions of those> > days, and should not impose our philistine materialism upon the rishis> > who composed those texts.> >> > -VJ> > ======= ================ ================== ===========> >> > , "Bhaskar"> > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Vinay jee,> > >> > > But are we sure , we know the astronomy as known by Vyas ji ?> > >> > > Does the following scheme fit in Vyasjis asronomy ?> > >> > > 1200 Years of KaliYuga .> > >> > > 2400 Years of Dwapara Yuga ?> > >> > > 3600 Years of Treta Yuga ?> > >> > > 4800 Years of Sata Yuga ?> > >> > > Completing 12000 years revolution of Sun, in ascending arc, and> another> > > 12000 years in descending arc ?> > >> > > I am not aware of such nuances, hence asking you.> > >> > > regards,> > >> > > Bhaskar.> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee first.> I've> > > > posted my message there, saying that only the astronomy known to> Vyas> > > > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should not> be> > > > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of> > > > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single> > > > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no> hurry.> > > >> > > > -VJ> > > >> > > > , "Bhaskar"> > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear Vinay ji,> > > > >> > > > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.> > > > >> > > > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who has> done> > > > > studies in such subjects.> > > > >> > > > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not question> it.> > > > >> > > > > regards,> > > > >> > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > @Bhaskar jee :-> > > > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in the> > > initial> > > > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present> > > Kalpa(Creation).> > > > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras, each manvantara having 71> > > mahaayugas.> > > > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali. This> > > > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.> > > > > >> > > > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa,> avasarpini> > > > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has elapsed in> > > 2000> > > > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human> population> > > has> > > > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current> > > demographers> > > > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be> quietened> > > when> > > > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is> silently> > > > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of> Saurpakshiya> > > > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.> > > > > >> > > > > > -VJ> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > , "Bhaskar"> > > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit and> am> > > > > amazed at> > > > > > > same.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Just a laymans query -> > > > > > >> > > > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga Theory ?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > regards,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ,> "vinayjhaa16"> > > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly,> about> > > the> > > > > basis> > > > > > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the JNU> > > brand> > > > > of> > > > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at all),> nor> > > with> > > > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga> (after> > > 3101> > > > > BC).> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > , "prafulla> > > Vaman> > > > > > > > Mendki" prafulla_mendki@ wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dear friends> > > > > > > > > My book "Mahabharata Yuddhakal" and date of Mahabharata> war> > > > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13, solar> > > eclipse> > > > > at> > > > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi> > > Newspaper> > > > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008> ,under> > > column> > > > > > > > > "Kutuhal".> > > > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@> > > > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476> > > > > > > > > (English book also available)> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayji,

 

This is a request or challenge?

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16

Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:53 AM

 

@Sunil jee : " Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars

 

whether all of them have heard about the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato

 

Gati " or not. You may be in for a big surprise. "

 

 

 

I had said " I may not be aware of " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " , but all

 

those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things

 

who accept me as an authority in these matters " .

 

 

 

Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks " Ankaanaam

 

Vaamato Gati " to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any

 

Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay

 

attention to his language. But I am now really surprized at him and

 

his interpretation of ancient texts.

 

 

 

Sunil jee also says : " I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to

 

update the astronomical data from time to time. "

 

 

 

I hope Sunil jee will illumine my dark mind about updating

 

Suryasiddhanta, esp because Burgess deliberately omitted from the

 

original text the 22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara needed for updating

 

Suryasiddhanta. No westernized scholar could ever understand or

 

translate those verses. I request Sunil jee to help me in understand

 

these 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional

 

publishers are still not ready to omit them.

 

 

 

All modern commentators followed Burgess, Stokingwoode and Wilkinson

 

in neglecting Suryasiddhantic Tables, just because they failed to

 

understand the Suryasiddhantic formulas used to construct these

 

tables. No available commentary mentions these ancient tables, which

 

are still used by a majority of traditional Hindu almanac (panchanga)

 

makers. I request Sunil jee to tell me the name of these ancient

 

Suryasiddhantic Tables, which are still alive but are famous in some

 

other name.

 

 

 

The " authorities " I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my

 

views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor

 

to organize shaastraartha for three days. But now, I learn from Sunil

 

jee that all of them, including me, are in for a big surprize for not

 

knowing the first things a student learns in a Sanskrit university.

 

Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati cannot be whimsically used to deduce whatever

 

one wants to. Sunil jee's notions of Time Cycles are contrary to the

 

views of all ancient astrological/ astronomical and Puranic texts of

 

India. I have already explained the meaning of 12000 divine years

 

being equal to 4320000 human years in one of my recent posts, but

 

Sunil jee is sticking to his wrong views.

 

 

 

Hence, I invite him to teach me the ancient Tantra of Jyotisha which

 

is needed for constructing and updating Suryasiddhantic and other

 

tables. Please name that Tantra (Suryasiddhantic Tables). Those

 

ancient tables were called Tantra, and the mechanisms of constructing

 

these tables are known only to a few. Shaastraartha presupposes a

 

thorough study of shaastras. Come on Sunil jee, please illumine my

 

dark mind about the technique of ancient Indian astrology/astronomy .

 

Tantra is 'technique' ; show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic

 

tables which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence

 

in explaining them.

 

 

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== ============ ========

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

> Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether  all of

 

them  have heard about the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " or not. You

 

may be in for a big surprise.

 

>

 

> According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and

 

most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the

 

subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in

 

its statements.  Vishnu Purana supplements the same.

 

>

 

> As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of

 

mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy

 

of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a

 

copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the

 

Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I

 

believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from

 

Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura.  I understand that

 

Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to

 

time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into

 

Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than

 

for Astrology.

 

>

 

> Regards,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> wrote:

 

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

> ancient_indian_ astrology

 

> Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil jee said : " Those who are not aware of the rule

 

" Ankaanaam

 

>

 

> Vaamato Gati " interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 "

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I may not be aware of " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " , but all those

 

>

 

> institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who

 

>

 

> accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.

 

>

 

> http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of

 

>

 

> the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting

 

>

 

> Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,

 

>

 

> I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of

 

>

 

> all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.

 

>

 

> Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of

 

>

 

> yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was

 

>

 

> rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

> >  

 

>

 

> > I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by

 

>

 

> Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of

 

>

 

> Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the

 

>

 

> rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1

 

>

 

> whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given

 

>

 

> in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number

 

>

 

> dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the

 

>

 

> span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the

 

>

 

> moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are

 

>

 

> really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an

 

>

 

> extra effort to provide them to you.

 

>

 

> >  

 

>

 

> > Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the

 

>

 

> span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga

 

>

 

> should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of

 

>

 

> Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the

 

>

 

> Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they

 

>

 

> invented the concept that this figure of  1200 should be multiplied by

 

>

 

> 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for

 

>

 

> Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be

 

>

 

> multiplied by 360 to arrive at the  human years.

 

>

 

> >  

 

>

 

> > Regards,

 

>

 

> >  

 

>

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

>

 

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

 

>

 

> > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

 

>

 

> > which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

 

>

 

> > sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

 

>

 

> > exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

 

>

 

> > is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

 

>

 

> > me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

 

>

 

> > They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

 

>

 

> > value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

 

>

 

> > drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

 

>

 

> > Why tamper with ancient idesa?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > -VJ

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar "

 

>

 

> > <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Dear Sunil ji,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

 

>

 

> > > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > regards,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Bhaskar.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

[Guest guest]

See the kind of claims that are being made:

I had said "I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things who accept me as an authority in these matters".Which are those Institutions and Individuals and people who accepts this man as the authority? Authority in what? Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay attention to his language.

If it was so well known how the author of fraudulent Vedic Mathematics, Sankaracharya Bharati Krishna used Katapayadi in the opposite direction. Frauds miss the truth and for illustration see the book Vedic Mathematics. Author of VM claimed non-existent Parisishtas (appendices) for Atharva Veda and he had manipulated all the algebraic logics of Aryabhatiya and Lilavati to derive the so called Sutras.

chandra hari

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear Vinayji,> > This is a request or challenge?> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16 wrote:> vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16 Re: Date of Mahabharata> > Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:53 AM> > @Sunil jee :"Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars> > whether all of them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato> > Gati" or not. You may be in for a big surprise."> > > > I had said "I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all> > those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things> > who accept me as an authority in these matters".> > > > Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks "Ankaanaam> > Vaamato Gati" to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any> > Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay> > attention to his language. But I am now really surprized at him and> > his interpretation of ancient texts.> > > > Sunil jee also says :"I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to> > update the astronomical data from time to time."> > > > I hope Sunil jee will illumine my dark mind about updating> > Suryasiddhanta, esp because Burgess deliberately omitted from the> > original text the 22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara needed for updating> > Suryasiddhanta. No westernized scholar could ever understand or> > translate those verses. I request Sunil jee to help me in understand> > these 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional> > publishers are still not ready to omit them.> > > > All modern commentators followed Burgess, Stokingwoode and Wilkinson> > in neglecting Suryasiddhantic Tables, just because they failed to> > understand the Suryasiddhantic formulas used to construct these> > tables. No available commentary mentions these ancient tables, which> > are still used by a majority of traditional Hindu almanac (panchanga)> > makers. I request Sunil jee to tell me the name of these ancient> > Suryasiddhantic Tables, which are still alive but are famous in some> > other name.> > > > The "authorities" I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my> > views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor> > to organize shaastraartha for three days. But now, I learn from Sunil> > jee that all of them, including me, are in for a big surprize for not> > knowing the first things a student learns in a Sanskrit university.> > Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati cannot be whimsically used to deduce whatever> > one wants to. Sunil jee's notions of Time Cycles are contrary to the> > views of all ancient astrological/ astronomical and Puranic texts of> > India. I have already explained the meaning of 12000 divine years> > being equal to 4320000 human years in one of my recent posts, but> > Sunil jee is sticking to his wrong views.> > > > Hence, I invite him to teach me the ancient Tantra of Jyotisha which> > is needed for constructing and updating Suryasiddhantic and other> > tables. Please name that Tantra (Suryasiddhantic Tables). Those> > ancient tables were called Tantra, and the mechanisms of constructing> > these tables are known only to a few. Shaastraartha presupposes a> > thorough study of shaastras. Come on Sunil jee, please illumine my> > dark mind about the technique of ancient Indian astrology/astronomy .> > Tantra is 'technique' ; show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic> > tables which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence> > in explaining them.> > > > -VJ> > ============ ======== ============ ========> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > >> > > Dear Vinayji,> > >> > > Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether all of> > them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" or not. You> > may be in for a big surprise.> > >> > > According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and> > most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the> > subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in> > its statements. Vishnu Purana supplements the same.> > >> > > As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of> > mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy> > of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a> > copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the> > Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I> > believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from> > Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura. I understand that> > Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to> > time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into> > Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than> > for Astrology.> > >> > > Regards,> > >> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > >> > >> > >> > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Sunil jee said : "Those who are not aware of the rule> > "Ankaanaam> > >> > > Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1"> > >> > >> > >> > > I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all those> > >> > > institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who> > >> > > accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.> > >> > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha> > >> > >> > >> > > Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of> > >> > > the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting> > >> > > Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,> > >> > > I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of> > >> > > all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.> > >> > > Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of> > >> > > yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was> > >> > > rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.> > >> > >> > >> > > -VJ> > >> > >> > >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya> > >> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Dear Vinayji,> > >> > > > > > >> > > > I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by> > >> > > Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of> > >> > > Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the> > >> > > rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1> > >> > > whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given> > >> > > in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number> > >> > > dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the> > >> > > span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the> > >> > > moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are> > >> > > really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an> > >> > > extra effort to provide them to you.> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the> > >> > > span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga> > >> > > should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of> > >> > > Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the> > >> > > Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they> > >> > > invented the concept that this figure of 1200 should be multiplied by> > >> > > 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for> > >> > > Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be> > >> > > multiplied by 360 to arrive at the human years.> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Regards,> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > >> > > >> > >> > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > >> > >> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > >> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata> > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > >> > > > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years> > >> > > > which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient> > >> > > > sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole> > >> > > > exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana> > >> > > > is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show> > >> > > > me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.> > >> > > > They are too much impressed with present day material progress to> > >> > > > value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must> > >> > > > drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.> > >> > > > Why tamper with ancient idesa?> > >> > > >> > >> > > > -VJ> > >> > > >> > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> > >> > > > <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Dear Sunil ji,> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current> > >> > > > > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > regards,> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > Bhaskar.> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Madam,

 

No hibernation sort of thing. I am alive in the same way as used to be.

But withdrew from the group as I felt that I cannot make understand

anything that I mean as science/sastra to those are into the business of

trumpeting their drums. And those who have no commitment to Jyotihsastra

and are in the group to catch predictive formulae show the same

behavior. My spirit is different and so withdrew from the active group.

Unless the students are qualified enough to understand the subject, it

is meaningless, trying to teach them. Jyotisha was never a subject of

the timid in those days about which we take pride. It is fun to see the

meek and timid speaking of Tantra, Yoga, Vamamarga etc.

 

chandra hari

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " neelam gupta "

<neelamgupta07 wrote:

>

> Dear Chandra Hari ji,

>

> Good to see you coming out of your hibernation. Most of us are are not

> competent and qualified to debate on such serious mathematical issues

and

> anyone can take advantage by using technical jargon as has been going

on for

> the past few days. I could not understand the real purpose of these

> discussions, except pedaling some particular software.

>

> Regards

> Neelam

2009/1/7 chandra_hari18 chandra_hari18

>

> > Dear friend,

> >

> > Without evidence and claiming 6th sense any jargon can be placed

before

> > anyone. One needs to be simply unscrupulous to do that. Those who

know

> > Sastras and those who teach sastras won't do such things. Your whole

> > discussion is unscientific and contradicts well known scientific

facts on

> > evolution theory, fossil evidence, geological and geophysical

findings. No

> > sensible man having a grasp of the variation of the planetary

elements with

> > time, won't speak of 4200 million years etc and think of some

astronomical

> > i.e. rationale in terms of real observed planetary motion to such a

long

> > geological time.

> >

> > I could also see some discussions like Varahamihira was a poor

> > mathematician and astronomer etc. You don't know anything about

Indian

> > astronomy. If you knew anything about Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya

or if

> > you had any understanding of the precepts presented in

Panchasiddhantika,

> > you would not have made such a statement.

> >

> > I think you are another fraud into the business of astrology and

seeking a

> > market for your product. Have you published any of your studies in

any

> > science Journals?

> >

> > Are you a scientist or an engineer? Please give full details and the

names

> > of two referees who are aware of your scientific works? If you are

product

> > of the IITs please give the name and contact details of your peers

so that

> > one may check your antecdents.

> >

> > This is the age of A_Satyam computers and we must be very careful

while

> > taking the statments of some people on face value. Be a bit

vigilant.

> >

> > Dear friends, don't start clapping when someone starts speaking

hyperbole.

> > Be a bit vigilant. Many of you not have the fundamentals clear -

that is

> > what the responses indicate. Science has a method. When someone

speaks of

> > Varahamihiar as a poor mathematician - please exercise your wisdom

to ask

> > the credentials of the guy.

> >

> > chandra hari

> >

> >

> > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > >

> > > A Mahayuga of 12000 divine years, divided into four yugas in the

ratio

> > > 4:3:2:1, has been wrongly interpreted by a moderner to mean 12000

> > > human years. A divine year is equal to 360 human years.

> > >

> > > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles does not

take

> > > place in this Saurpakshiya scheme which is the mainstream

> > > Vedic-Puranic scheme best explained in Suryasiddhanta.

> > >

> > > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles are

mentioned

> > > in Aryabhatiya. Suryasiddhanta has an unpublished Drikpakshiya

side

> > > which has this Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini)

> > > cycles. In this, we have a Kalpa of 4200 million years, instead of

> > > 4320 million years of Saurpakshiya Kalpa. One Drikpakshiya

mahayuga

> > > has 4200000 years. One Drikpakshiya Kaliyuga of 420000 years has

ten

> > > khanda-kalpas, each of 42000 years of avasarpini phase, followed

with

> > > 1200 years of utsarpini which conjoins it with the Saurpakshiya

> > > counterpart. First utsarpini phase of present Kaliyuga commenced

on

> > > the Makar Samkranti of 2000 AD, which was perceived as Doomsday by

> > > sinners who wrongly imagined themselves to be going to the Next

Higher

> > > World. Drikpakshiya Ganita is a closely guarded secret; its year

is

> > > equal to 365.250000000 days, as Bhaskar-II mentioned,

coincidentally.

> > >

> > > Drikpakshiya and Saurpakshiya Kalpas can be translated as

> > > physical/material/sensory world or Bhooloka and divine world or

> > > Bhuvaloka. Humans live in the first, while the deities of Jyotisha

> > > reside in the latter. Both universes have one Sun, one Moon,one

Mars,

> > > etc in each loka. Many ancient texts, following Vedic tradition as

> > > well as Jain, speak of two Suns. Bhooloka has a material Sun at a

ean

> > > distance of 1496 lakh Kms. Bhuvaloka has a divine Sun at a

distance of

> > > 55 lakh Kms. It is this divine Sun which is the graha of Jyotisha.

The

> > > planets of Mahabharata are grahas of Bhuvaloka. All ancient

> > > astrological texts as well as Vedas and Puranas explicitly call

grahas

> > > as deities and not as material bodies.

> > >

> > > It is another matter whether we accept or refuse the existence of

> > > Bhuvaloka, just because our five senses cannot perceive it. What I

> > > want to emphasize here is that we should judge the events of

> > > Mahabharata and Puranas on the basis of accepted notions of those

> > > days, and should not impose our philistine materialism upon the

rishis

> > > who composed those texts.

> > >

> > > -VJ

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

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay jee,

> > > >

> > > > But are we sure , we know the astronomy as known by Vyas ji ?

> > > >

> > > > Does the following scheme fit in Vyasjis asronomy ?

> > > >

> > > > 1200 Years of KaliYuga .

> > > >

> > > > 2400 Years of Dwapara Yuga ?

> > > >

> > > > 3600 Years of Treta Yuga ?

> > > >

> > > > 4800 Years of Sata Yuga ?

> > > >

> > > > Completing 12000 years revolution of Sun, in ascending arc, and

another

> > > > 12000 years in descending arc ?

> > > >

> > > > I am not aware of such nuances, hence asking you.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > >

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee

first. I've

> > > > > posted my message there, saying that only the astronomy known

to Vyas

> > > > > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should

not be

> > > > > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of

> > > > > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single

> > > > > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no

hurry.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Vinay ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who

has done

> > > > > > studies in such subjects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not

question it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

" vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > @Bhaskar jee :-

> > > > > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in

the

> > > > initial

> > > > > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present

> > > > Kalpa(Creation).

> > > > > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras, each manvantara having 71

> > > > mahaayugas.

> > > > > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali.

This

> > > > > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa,

avasarpini

> > > > > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has

elapsed in

> > > > 2000

> > > > > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human

population

> > > > has

> > > > > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current

> > > > demographers

> > > > > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be

quietened

> > > > when

> > > > > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is

> > silently

> > > > > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of

Saurpakshiya

> > > > > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit

and am

> > > > > > amazed at

> > > > > > > > same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just a laymans query -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga

Theory ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ,

" vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly,

about

> > > > the

> > > > > > basis

> > > > > > > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the

JNU

> > > > brand

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at

all), nor

> > > > with

> > > > > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga

(after

> > > > 3101

> > > > > > BC).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ,

" prafulla

> > > > Vaman

> > > > > > > > > Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear friends

> > > > > > > > > > My book " Mahabharata Yuddhakal " and date of

Mahabharata war

> > > > > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13,

solar

> > > > eclipse

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi

> > > > Newspaper

> > > > > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008

,under

> > > > column

> > > > > > > > > > " Kutuhal " .

> > > > > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@

> > > > > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476

> > > > > > > > > > (English book also available)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

//It is fun to see the meek and timid speaking of Tantra, Yoga, Vamamarga etc.//When the cat is away, it is the mice who play!!!

2009/1/8 chandra_hari18 <chandra_hari18

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Madam,

 

No hibernation sort of thing. I am alive in the same way as used to be.

But withdrew from the group as I felt that I cannot make understand

anything that I mean as science/sastra to those are into the business of

trumpeting their drums. And those who have no commitment to Jyotihsastra

and are in the group to catch predictive formulae show the same

behavior. My spirit is different and so withdrew from the active group.

Unless the students are qualified enough to understand the subject, it

is meaningless, trying to teach them. Jyotisha was never a subject of

the timid in those days about which we take pride. It is fun to see the

meek and timid speaking of Tantra, Yoga, Vamamarga etc.

 

chandra hari

 

, " neelam gupta "

<neelamgupta07 wrote:

>

> Dear Chandra Hari ji,

>

> Good to see you coming out of your hibernation. Most of us are are not

> competent and qualified to debate on such serious mathematical issues

and

> anyone can take advantage by using technical jargon as has been going

on for

> the past few days. I could not understand the real purpose of these

> discussions, except pedaling some particular software.

>

> Regards

> Neelam

2009/1/7 chandra_hari18 chandra_hari18

>

> > Dear friend,

> >

> > Without evidence and claiming 6th sense any jargon can be placed

before

> > anyone. One needs to be simply unscrupulous to do that. Those who

know

> > Sastras and those who teach sastras won't do such things. Your whole

> > discussion is unscientific and contradicts well known scientific

facts on

> > evolution theory, fossil evidence, geological and geophysical

findings. No

> > sensible man having a grasp of the variation of the planetary

elements with

> > time, won't speak of 4200 million years etc and think of some

astronomical

> > i.e. rationale in terms of real observed planetary motion to such a

long

> > geological time.

> >

> > I could also see some discussions like Varahamihira was a poor

> > mathematician and astronomer etc. You don't know anything about

Indian

> > astronomy. If you knew anything about Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya

or if

> > you had any understanding of the precepts presented in

Panchasiddhantika,

> > you would not have made such a statement.

> >

> > I think you are another fraud into the business of astrology and

seeking a

> > market for your product. Have you published any of your studies in

any

> > science Journals?

> >

> > Are you a scientist or an engineer? Please give full details and the

names

> > of two referees who are aware of your scientific works? If you are

product

> > of the IITs please give the name and contact details of your peers

so that

> > one may check your antecdents.

> >

> > This is the age of A_Satyam computers and we must be very careful

while

> > taking the statments of some people on face value. Be a bit

vigilant.

> >

> > Dear friends, don't start clapping when someone starts speaking

hyperbole.

> > Be a bit vigilant. Many of you not have the fundamentals clear -

that is

> > what the responses indicate. Science has a method. When someone

speaks of

> > Varahamihiar as a poor mathematician - please exercise your wisdom

to ask

> > the credentials of the guy.

> >

> > chandra hari

> >

> >

> > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > vinayjhaa16@ wrote:

> > >

> > > A Mahayuga of 12000 divine years, divided into four yugas in the

ratio

> > > 4:3:2:1, has been wrongly interpreted by a moderner to mean 12000

> > > human years. A divine year is equal to 360 human years.

> > >

> > > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles does not

take

> > > place in this Saurpakshiya scheme which is the mainstream

> > > Vedic-Puranic scheme best explained in Suryasiddhanta.

> > >

> > > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini) cycles are

mentioned

> > > in Aryabhatiya. Suryasiddhanta has an unpublished Drikpakshiya

side

> > > which has this Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpini)

> > > cycles. In this, we have a Kalpa of 4200 million years, instead of

> > > 4320 million years of Saurpakshiya Kalpa. One Drikpakshiya

mahayuga

> > > has 4200000 years. One Drikpakshiya Kaliyuga of 420000 years has

ten

> > > khanda-kalpas, each of 42000 years of avasarpini phase, followed

with

> > > 1200 years of utsarpini which conjoins it with the Saurpakshiya

> > > counterpart. First utsarpini phase of present Kaliyuga commenced

on

> > > the Makar Samkranti of 2000 AD, which was perceived as Doomsday by

> > > sinners who wrongly imagined themselves to be going to the Next

Higher

> > > World. Drikpakshiya Ganita is a closely guarded secret; its year

is

> > > equal to 365.250000000 days, as Bhaskar-II mentioned,

coincidentally.

> > >

> > > Drikpakshiya and Saurpakshiya Kalpas can be translated as

> > > physical/material/sensory world or Bhooloka and divine world or

> > > Bhuvaloka. Humans live in the first, while the deities of Jyotisha

> > > reside in the latter. Both universes have one Sun, one Moon,one

Mars,

> > > etc in each loka. Many ancient texts, following Vedic tradition as

> > > well as Jain, speak of two Suns. Bhooloka has a material Sun at a

ean

> > > distance of 1496 lakh Kms. Bhuvaloka has a divine Sun at a

distance of

> > > 55 lakh Kms. It is this divine Sun which is the graha of Jyotisha.

The

> > > planets of Mahabharata are grahas of Bhuvaloka. All ancient

> > > astrological texts as well as Vedas and Puranas explicitly call

grahas

> > > as deities and not as material bodies.

> > >

> > > It is another matter whether we accept or refuse the existence of

> > > Bhuvaloka, just because our five senses cannot perceive it. What I

> > > want to emphasize here is that we should judge the events of

> > > Mahabharata and Puranas on the basis of accepted notions of those

> > > days, and should not impose our philistine materialism upon the

rishis

> > > who composed those texts.

> > >

> > > -VJ

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

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay jee,

> > > >

> > > > But are we sure , we know the astronomy as known by Vyas ji ?

> > > >

> > > > Does the following scheme fit in Vyasjis asronomy ?

> > > >

> > > > 1200 Years of KaliYuga .

> > > >

> > > > 2400 Years of Dwapara Yuga ?

> > > >

> > > > 3600 Years of Treta Yuga ?

> > > >

> > > > 4800 Years of Sata Yuga ?

> > > >

> > > > Completing 12000 years revolution of Sun, in ascending arc, and

another

> > > > 12000 years in descending arc ?

> > > >

> > > > I am not aware of such nuances, hence asking you.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > >

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee

first. I've

> > > > > posted my message there, saying that only the astronomy known

to Vyas

> > > > > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should

not be

> > > > > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of

> > > > > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single

> > > > > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no

hurry.

> > > > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Vinay ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who

has done

> > > > > > studies in such subjects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not

question it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

" vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > @Bhaskar jee :-

> > > > > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in

the

> > > > initial

> > > > > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present

> > > > Kalpa(Creation).

> > > > > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras, each manvantara having 71

> > > > mahaayugas.

> > > > > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali.

This

> > > > > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa,

avasarpini

> > > > > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has

elapsed in

> > > > 2000

> > > > > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human

population

> > > > has

> > > > > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current

> > > > demographers

> > > > > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be

quietened

> > > > when

> > > > > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is

> > silently

> > > > > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of

Saurpakshiya

> > > > > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit

and am

> > > > > > amazed at

> > > > > > > > same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just a laymans query -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga

Theory ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ,

" vinayjhaa16 "

> > > > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly,

about

> > > > the

> > > > > > basis

> > > > > > > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the

JNU

> > > > brand

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at

all), nor

> > > > with

> > > > > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga

(after

> > > > 3101

> > > > > > BC).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ,

" prafulla

> > > > Vaman

> > > > > > > > > Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear friends

> > > > > > > > > > My book " Mahabharata Yuddhakal " and date of

Mahabharata war

> > > > > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13,

solar

> > > > eclipse

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi

> > > > Newspaper

> > > > > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008

,under

> > > > column

> > > > > > > > > > " Kutuhal " .

> > > > > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@

> > > > > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476

> > > > > > > > > > (English book also available)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

Varahamihira was a great Astronomer and astrologer.Maayaasura who wrote Suryasidhdhaanta was also Vedic and certainly not European or greek are a mlechacha.He was the Architect of Asuras who were also Vedic.The Asuras and Suraas had different mothers but same Father Prajapati Maharshi Kasyapa.There are many references in the Vedas and al;lied literatures for this.To call the Asuras as Greek is just another humback and wrong history propouned by Pseudo historian Max Mueller and his followers who are have no evidence to proved their theory.The basis of there theories is the Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory whichhas been proved a myth by many historians including me lon g back.So stop propogating youe baseless theories.

Yours faithfully,

B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN.

website: www.vedascience.com

 

 

 

Bhaskar <rajiventerprises Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:02:37 AM Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

 

Dear Chandra Hari ji,

Not all responses are of approval. If You check my responses, you will find that I have not attacked, but not accepted too.

I do not like people who disgrace our ancestors and prove them wrong.

Because this is what Avtar Kishen kual does too.

Those who do this ,close all the doors of any logical discussions and inferences and acknowledgement of any findings done by the person who puts his ancestors down.

Varamihira was a great astrologer, and I will not accept anyone who puts him down, on face value. He will have to prove himsef better than Varamihira to put him down.

Most of the people let me say this frankly and honestly, who are on internet Forums, are those who are fed up of their family lives, and not having much professional duties, including myself, which is why they are here.

If they had been somebody, they would not have been here. They would not have had the time to write here after so much academic degrees credited to theri names.

These days the people who shout on the roof tops about their theories get heard. This is what is written in the Ramayana about the Kaliyuga. ( Now whether this is the Kaliyuga or the Dwapar, only God knows ).

But a precedent has been set since last few years. Talk bad about the ancestors and make yourself known, famous and smart.

So no wonder if somebody puts Varamihira down. They are the same sheep from the same flock.

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, "chandra_hari18" <chandra_hari18@ ...> wrote:>> > Dear friend,> > Without evidence and claiming 6th sense any jargon can be placed before> anyone. One needs to be simply unscrupulous to do that. Those who know> Sastras and those who teach sastras won't do such things. Your whole> discussion is unscientific and contradicts well known scientific facts> on evolution theory, fossil evidence, geological and geophysical> findings. No sensible man having a grasp of the variation of the> planetary elements with time, won't speak of 4200 million years etc and> think of some astronomical i.e. rationale in terms of real observed> planetary motion to such a long geological time.> > I could also see some discussions like Varahamihira was a poor> mathematician and astronomer etc. You don't know

anything about Indian> astronomy. If you knew anything about Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhatiya or> if you had any understanding of the precepts presented in> Panchasiddhantika, you would not have made such a statement.> > I think you are another fraud into the business of astrology and seeking> a market for your product. Have you published any of your studies in any> science Journals?> > Are you a scientist or an engineer? Please give full details and the> names of two referees who are aware of your scientific works? If you are> product of the IITs please give the name and contact details of your> peers so that one may check your antecdents.> > This is the age of A_Satyam computers and we must be very careful while> taking the statments of some people on face value. Be a bit vigilant.> > Dear friends, don't start clapping when someone

starts speaking> hyperbole. Be a bit vigilant. Many of you not have the fundamentals> clear - that is what the responses indicate. Science has a method. When> someone speaks of Varahamihiar as a poor mathematician - please exercise> your wisdom to ask the credentials of the guy.> > chandra hari> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "vinayjhaa16"> vinayjhaa16@ wrote:> >> > A Mahayuga of 12000 divine years, divided into four yugas in the ratio> > 4:3:2:1, has been wrongly interpreted by a moderner to mean 12000> > human years. A divine year is equal to 360 human years.> >> > Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpi ni) cycles does not take> > place in this Saurpakshiya scheme which is the mainstream> > Vedic-Puranic scheme best explained in Suryasiddhanta.> >> >

Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpi ni) cycles are mentioned> > in Aryabhatiya. Suryasiddhanta has an unpublished Drikpakshiya side> > which has this Ascending (utsarpini) and descending(avasarpi ni)> > cycles. In this, we have a Kalpa of 4200 million years, instead of> > 4320 million years of Saurpakshiya Kalpa. One Drikpakshiya mahayuga> > has 4200000 years. One Drikpakshiya Kaliyuga of 420000 years has ten> > khanda-kalpas, each of 42000 years of avasarpini phase, followed with> > 1200 years of utsarpini which conjoins it with the Saurpakshiya> > counterpart. First utsarpini phase of present Kaliyuga commenced on> > the Makar Samkranti of 2000 AD, which was perceived as Doomsday by> > sinners who wrongly imagined themselves to be going to the Next Higher> > World. Drikpakshiya Ganita is a closely guarded secret; its year is>

> equal to 365.250000000 days, as Bhaskar-II mentioned, coincidentally.> >> > Drikpakshiya and Saurpakshiya Kalpas can be translated as> > physical/material/ sensory world or Bhooloka and divine world or> > Bhuvaloka. Humans live in the first, while the deities of Jyotisha> > reside in the latter. Both universes have one Sun, one Moon,one Mars,> > etc in each loka. Many ancient texts, following Vedic tradition as> > well as Jain, speak of two Suns. Bhooloka has a material Sun at a ean> > distance of 1496 lakh Kms. Bhuvaloka has a divine Sun at a distance of> > 55 lakh Kms. It is this divine Sun which is the graha of Jyotisha. The> > planets of Mahabharata are grahas of Bhuvaloka. All ancient> > astrological texts as well as Vedas and Puranas explicitly call grahas> > as deities and not as material bodies.> >> >

It is another matter whether we accept or refuse the existence of> > Bhuvaloka, just because our five senses cannot perceive it. What I> > want to emphasize here is that we should judge the events of> > Mahabharata and Puranas on the basis of accepted notions of those> > days, and should not impose our philistine materialism upon the rishis> > who composed those texts.> >> > -VJ> > ======= ============ ==== ============ ====== ===========> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Vinay jee,> > >> > > But are we sure , we know the astronomy as known by Vyas ji ?> > >> > > Does the following scheme fit in Vyasjis asronomy ?> > >> > > 1200 Years of KaliYuga

..> > >> > > 2400 Years of Dwapara Yuga ?> > >> > > 3600 Years of Treta Yuga ?> > >> > > 4800 Years of Sata Yuga ?> > >> > > Completing 12000 years revolution of Sun, in ascending arc, and> another> > > 12000 years in descending arc ?> > >> > > I am not aware of such nuances, hence asking you.> > >> > > regards,> > >> > > Bhaskar.> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "vinayjhaa16"> > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Bhaskar Jee asks my view. I wanted to debug Prafulla Jee first.> I've> > > > posted my

message there, saying that only the astronomy known to> Vyas> > > > jee should be used to analyze MBh, and modern science should not> be> > > > taught to Bhishma Pitamah or Vyas jee. MBh has too much of> > > > astronomical and astrological data to be summed up in a single> > > > discussion. I will give my views topic by topic. There is no> hurry.> > > >> > > > -VJ> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear Vinay ji,> > > > >> > > > > I am aware somewhat, of the various views.> > > > >> > > > > I was looking for your views, and opinion - from a man who has>

done> > > > > studies in such subjects.> > > > >> > > > > I am open to any view you may ., and will not question> it.> > > > >> > > > > regards,> > > > >> > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "vinayjhaa16"> > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > @Bhaskar jee :-> > > > > > According to mainstream (Vedic-Puranic) view, we are in the> > > initial> > > > > > phase of 27th Kaliyuga of 7th Manvantara of present> > > Kalpa(Creation) .> > > > > > One Kalpa has 14 manvantaras,

each manvantara having 71> > > mahaayugas.> > > > > > Every mahayuga has one each : sat, treta, dvaapar,kali. This> > > > > > mainstream view is called Saurpakshiya view.> > > > > >> > > > > > According to unpublished theory of Drikpakshiya Kalpa,> avasarpini> > > > > > phase of first khanda-kalpa of current Kaliyuga has elapsed in> > > 2000> > > > > > AD, after which an utsarpini phase has started. Human> population> > > has> > > > > > reached its max possible limit : 6227 millions. Current> > > demographers> > > > > > are putting estimates at 6.5 billions, but they will be> quietened> > > when> > > > > > real data arrives within few years. A new human specie is>

silently> > > > > > evolving. Drikpakshiya theory is the tantric side of> Saurpakshiya> > > > > > theory, and is taught only to the initiates.> > > > > >> > > > > > -VJ> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> > > > > > rajiventerprises@ wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha jee,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I have seen the innumerable achievements to your credit and> am> > > > > amazed at> > > > > > > same.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Just a laymans query -> > > >

> > >> > > > > > > What is your take on the 4,32,000 years of Kaliyuga Theory ?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Are we in the Dwapara Yuga at present ?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > regards,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> "vinayjhaa16"> > > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I request Prafulla jee to inform us, at least briefly,> about> > > the> > > > > basis> > > >

> > > > of his dating, which is neither in conformity with the JNU> > > brand> > > > > of> > > > > > > > history which puts MBH war around 950 BC (or not at all),> nor> > > with> > > > > > > > traditionalist view which rejects MBh war in Kaliyuga> (after> > > 3101> > > > > BC).> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "prafulla> > > Vaman> > > > > > > > Mendki" prafulla_mendki@ wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dear friends> > > > > > > > > My book "Mahabharata Yuddhakal" and

date of Mahabharata> war> > > > > > > > > i.e. 10th Sept 3008BC (Greg) ,Kartik Krishna 13, solar> > > eclipse> > > > > at> > > > > > > > > 213 deg (Vishakha/Anuradha) are mentioned in Marathi> > > Newspaper> > > > > > > > > Loksatta by Marathi Vigyan Parishad on 31 Dec 2008> ,under> > > column> > > > > > > > > "Kutuhal".> > > > > > > > > For more details contact prafulla_mendki@> > > > > > > > > Phone 0251-2209476> > > > > > > > > (English book also available)> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >

>> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

@ Sunil jee :I made neither a request nor a challenge, but my language might have appeared to be equivocal, which was in a response to your language.You are well versed in both science and ancient texts. If you do not mind, you can take my mail to be both a request as well as a challenge ; please do not feel offended. My aim is not to engage you in a wordy duel, it is foolish and will waste my time as well as yours. I want you to devote some time to the questions I have put forth. If you find proper answers, both you and the world will get the benefit. If you do not know the answer, it will not belittle you in the least, because the questions I have put forth were beyond

the intellectual capabilities of so-called "experts" like Burgess (22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara ... I request Sunil jee to help me in understand these

22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional publishers are

still not ready to omit them. ......... show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic tables

which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence in explaining

them).If you get the meaning of 22 shlokas about beeja-samskara in SS, I shall be obliged to you, because I want to get the views of every knowledgeable persons about the meaning of these shlokas.As for the second question (SS tables, I am not speaking of the Siamese SS tables of 7th century AD presently in France) , try to find the meaning of my obscure passage.Sincerely,-VJ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, January 8, 2009 1:01:19 AM Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

Dear Vinayji,

 

This is a request or challenge?

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

ancient_indian_ astrology

Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:53 AM

 

@Sunil jee :"Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars

 

whether all of them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato

 

Gati" or not. You may be in for a big surprise."

 

I had said "I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all

 

those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things

 

who accept me as an authority in these matters".

 

Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks "Ankaanaam

 

Vaamato Gati" to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any

 

Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay

 

attention to his language. But I am now really surprized at him and

 

his interpretation of ancient texts.

 

Sunil jee also says :"I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to

 

update the astronomical data from time to time."

 

I hope Sunil jee will illumine my dark mind about updating

 

Suryasiddhanta, esp because Burgess deliberately omitted from the

 

original text the 22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara needed for updating

 

Suryasiddhanta. No westernized scholar could ever understand or

 

translate those verses. I request Sunil jee to help me in understand

 

these 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional

 

publishers are still not ready to omit them.

 

All modern commentators followed Burgess, Stokingwoode and Wilkinson

 

in neglecting Suryasiddhantic Tables, just because they failed to

 

understand the Suryasiddhantic formulas used to construct these

 

tables. No available commentary mentions these ancient tables, which

 

are still used by a majority of traditional Hindu almanac (panchanga)

 

makers. I request Sunil jee to tell me the name of these ancient

 

Suryasiddhantic Tables, which are still alive but are famous in some

 

other name.

 

The "authorities" I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my

 

views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor

 

to organize shaastraartha for three days. But now, I learn from Sunil

 

jee that all of them, including me, are in for a big surprize for not

 

knowing the first things a student learns in a Sanskrit university.

 

Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati cannot be whimsically used to deduce whatever

 

one wants to. Sunil jee's notions of Time Cycles are contrary to the

 

views of all ancient astrological/ astronomical and Puranic texts of

 

India. I have already explained the meaning of 12000 divine years

 

being equal to 4320000 human years in one of my recent posts, but

 

Sunil jee is sticking to his wrong views.

 

Hence, I invite him to teach me the ancient Tantra of Jyotisha which

 

is needed for constructing and updating Suryasiddhantic and other

 

tables. Please name that Tantra (Suryasiddhantic Tables). Those

 

ancient tables were called Tantra, and the mechanisms of constructing

 

these tables are known only to a few. Shaastraartha presupposes a

 

thorough study of shaastras. Come on Sunil jee, please illumine my

 

dark mind about the technique of ancient Indian astrology/astronomy .

 

Tantra is 'technique' ; show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic

 

tables which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence

 

in explaining them.

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== ============ ========

 

ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

> Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether all of

 

them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" or not. You

 

may be in for a big surprise.

 

>

 

> According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and

 

most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the

 

subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in

 

its statements. Vishnu Purana supplements the same.

 

>

 

> As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of

 

mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy

 

of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a

 

copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the

 

Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I

 

believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from

 

Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura. I understand that

 

Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to

 

time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into

 

Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than

 

for Astrology.

 

>

 

> Regards,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> wrote:

 

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

> ancient_indian_ astrology

 

> Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil jee said : "Those who are not aware of the rule

 

"Ankaanaam

 

>

 

> Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1"

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all those

 

>

 

> institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who

 

>

 

> accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.

 

>

 

> http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of

 

>

 

> the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting

 

>

 

> Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,

 

>

 

> I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of

 

>

 

> all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.

 

>

 

> Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of

 

>

 

> yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was

 

>

 

> rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Dear Vinayji,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by

 

>

 

> Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of

 

>

 

> Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the

 

>

 

> rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1

 

>

 

> whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given

 

>

 

> in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number

 

>

 

> dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the

 

>

 

> span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the

 

>

 

> moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are

 

>

 

> really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an

 

>

 

> extra effort to provide them to you.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the

 

>

 

> span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga

 

>

 

> should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of

 

>

 

> Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the

 

>

 

> Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they

 

>

 

> invented the concept that this figure of 1200 should be multiplied by

 

>

 

> 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for

 

>

 

> Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be

 

>

 

> multiplied by 360 to arrive at the human years.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Regards,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata

 

>

 

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

 

>

 

> > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years

 

>

 

> > which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient

 

>

 

> > sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole

 

>

 

> > exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana

 

>

 

> > is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show

 

>

 

> > me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.

 

>

 

> > They are too much impressed with present day material progress to

 

>

 

> > value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must

 

>

 

> > drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.

 

>

 

> > Why tamper with ancient idesa?

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > -VJ

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"

 

>

 

> > <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Dear Sunil ji,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current

 

>

 

> > > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > regards,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Bhaskar.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayji,We don't have to reinvent the wheel. All the necessary work, which you are referring to, has already been done by Pathani Samanta or Pandit Samanta Chadrasekhar and it is all there in his book "Sjddhanta Darpan", which has 24 chapters. In that book there are 2184 verses, which he composed himself and he also quoted 316 verses. He has written the book in Sanskrit and as you know Sanskrit you should not have problem in going through that. This book has been published from Delhi. This book was written before the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra of Sankara Balakrishna Dixit was published but it did not find mention in the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra, as it got published only after the latter book was published. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunil jee,I had expected a better reply. You entirely missed the point. Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar added beeja samskaaras to manda and shigra paridhyamsha, among others, in order to make the results of siddhantic method approximately equal to those of modern physical astronomy. I wasted much time in making softwares on such lines. Siddhantic method is completely incompatible with physical astronomy. For instance, siddhantic method does not take into account the effects of other planets on a planet's motions. Planetary distances have vast differences : Siddhantic distance of Sun from Earth is over 27 times leass than 1 AU. Hence, the work of Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar was accepted neither by scientists nor by

traditional astrologers. You have not worked on these problems yourself and are relying upon conclusions put forth by others (I beg apology if you feel offended, my purpose is not to offend you but to attract your attention towards a neglected aspect of astrology), that is why you are missing my point. Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar has param manda paridhyamsha for Sun within a range 13 to 14 degrees, whereas modern observations suggest a value of 12 degrees and 3 minutes as a mean value if eccentricity of Earth's orbit is taken to be 0.016733.Perhaps you are busy in other activities. I asked too much. If possible, please read my questions again and try to find some answer. I do not want Samanta Chandra Shekhar's personal theory, but the exact meaning of 22 shlokas of Suryasiddhanta deliberately omitted by E Burgess(but present in all editions by pandits, eg by Chowkhambha).I again repeat : Siddhantic method is incompatible

with physical astronomy. Both are equally valid in their respective fields : physical astronomy is valid for physical world, while siddhantic method is indespensable for astrology, provided accuracy of predictions is held to be the criterion of truth in astrology and heavenly positions of physical planets are forgotten for the time being. Too much of scientific training makes one, more often than not, impervious to this fact. Please do not take mt remrks as a personal affront or as an insult to science, and try to see the point I am raising, for which I have started receiving abuses from persons like Chandra Hari, who evade discussions and relish in abuses and false allegations. 99% persons using internet will refuse to even listen to me, but not at my loss, because I do not sell my software. Refusal to test others' ideas is the hallmark of some modern intellectual

!-VJ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2009 2:49:33 PM Re:Date of Mahabharata

 

Dear Vinayji,We don't have to reinvent the wheel. All the necessary work, which you are referring to, has already been done by Pathani Samanta or Pandit Samanta Chadrasekhar and it is all there in his book "Sjddhanta Darpan", which has 24 chapters. In that book there are 2184 verses, which he composed himself and he also quoted 316 verses. He has written the book in Sanskrit and as you know Sanskrit you should not have problem in going through that. This book has been published from Delhi. This book was written before the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra of Sankara Balakrishna Dixit was published but it did not find

mention in the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra, as it got published only after the latter book was published. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

It may be noted:

1. Burgess himself was a great scholar and astronomer and he has demonstrated his interpretations with computations in his book and such a good work has not appeared again even after 100s of years.

2. Burgess had the proven competence to understand the relevance few verses (21 or 22) intended for Bijakriya found in certain manuscripts known since the time of Ranganatha who wrote a commentary on the text in 16th century.

3. Such an appendix was not known to Kerala astronomical tradition where the Vaghbhava correction got introduced.

4. Appendix as above for Bijakriya was not known during the times of Varaha, Aryabhata or Brahmagupta, Vatesvara, Munjala etc. These great astronomers have not discussed the Bija verses seen in some manuscripts of Suryasiddhanta.

5. Great astronomer Paramesvara of 15th century who wrote a commentary on Suryasiddhanta and also created a new Ganita, Drgganitam has not discussed the efficacy of any Bija said in Suryasiddhanta.

Had those Bija verses been original subsequent astronomers would have discussed, tested and improved those computations during the 1000 years that elapsed between Varahamihira and Ranganatha.

All thoses verses appear after the Upasamharam. Why should the great genius who authored Suryasiddhanta leave some subject matter as few orphaned verses outside the text? The system of Appendices were prevalent in those days? ok. If yes, what kind of subject matter is presented as an appendix?

If Bija kriya formed part of original text why the great genius (The so called Asura Rishi Mayan) did not incorporate that into the astronomical theory of his text?

chandra harii

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> @ Sunil jee :> > I made neither a request nor a challenge, but my language might have appeared to be equivocal, which was in a response to your language.> > You are well versed in both science and ancient texts. If you do not mind, you can take my mail to be both a request as well as a challenge ; please do not feel offended. My aim is not to engage you in a wordy duel, it is foolish and will waste my time as well as yours. I want you to devote some time to the questions I have put forth. If you find proper answers, both you and the world will get the benefit. If you do not know the answer, it will not belittle you in the least, because the questions I have put forth were beyond the intellectual capabilities of so-called "experts" like Burgess (22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara ... I request Sunil jee to help me in understand these> 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional publishers are> still not ready to omit them. ......... show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic tables> which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence in explaining> them).> > If you get the meaning of 22 shlokas about beeja-samskara in SS, I shall be obliged to you, because I want to get the views of every knowledgeable persons about the meaning of these shlokas.> > As for the second question (SS tables, I am not speaking of the Siamese SS tables of 7th century AD presently in France) , try to find the meaning of my obscure passage.> > Sincerely,> > -VJ> > > > > ________________________________> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, January 8, 2009 1:01:19 AM> Re: Date of Mahabharata> > > Dear Vinayji,> > This is a request or challenge?> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata> ancient_indian_ astrology> Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:53 AM> > @Sunil jee :"Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars> > whether all of them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato> > Gati" or not. You may be in for a big surprise."> > I had said "I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all> > those institutions and individuals are also ignorant of these things> > who accept me as an authority in these matters".> > Sunil jee missed the irony in my comment, because he thinks "Ankaanaam> > Vaamato Gati" to be a great secret. Every student of Jyotisha at any> > Sanskrit university knows it. I had hoped Sunil jee would pay> > attention to his language. But I am now really surprized at him and> > his interpretation of ancient texts. > > Sunil jee also says :"I understand that Suryasiddhanta expects us to> > update the astronomical data from time to time."> > I hope Sunil jee will illumine my dark mind about updating> > Suryasiddhanta, esp because Burgess deliberately omitted from the> > original text the 22 shlokas of beeja-samskaara needed for updating> > Suryasiddhanta. No westernized scholar could ever understand or> > translate those verses. I request Sunil jee to help me in understand> > these 22 verses which Burgess deliberately omitted but traditional> > publishers are still not ready to omit them. > > All modern commentators followed Burgess, Stokingwoode and Wilkinson> > in neglecting Suryasiddhantic Tables, just because they failed to> > understand the Suryasiddhantic formulas used to construct these> > tables. No available commentary mentions these ancient tables, which> > are still used by a majority of traditional Hindu almanac (panchanga)> > makers. I request Sunil jee to tell me the name of these ancient> > Suryasiddhantic Tables, which are still alive but are famous in some> > other name.> > The "authorities" I cited were not my admirers, but had to accept my> > views after a high court verdict which compelled the Vice Chancellor> > to organize shaastraartha for three days. But now, I learn from Sunil> > jee that all of them, including me, are in for a big surprize for not> > knowing the first things a student learns in a Sanskrit university.> > Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati cannot be whimsically used to deduce whatever> > one wants to. Sunil jee's notions of Time Cycles are contrary to the> > views of all ancient astrological/ astronomical and Puranic texts of> > India. I have already explained the meaning of 12000 divine years> > being equal to 4320000 human years in one of my recent posts, but> > Sunil jee is sticking to his wrong views. > > Hence, I invite him to teach me the ancient Tantra of Jyotisha which> > is needed for constructing and updating Suryasiddhantic and other> > tables. Please name that Tantra (Suryasiddhantic Tables). Those> > ancient tables were called Tantra, and the mechanisms of constructing> > these tables are known only to a few. Shaastraartha presupposes a> > thorough study of shaastras. Come on Sunil jee, please illumine my> > dark mind about the technique of ancient Indian astrology/astronomy .> > Tantra is 'technique' ; show me the technique of those Suryasiddhantic> > tables which Burgess deliberately omitted to hide his own incompetence> > in explaining them.> > -VJ> > ============ ======== ============ ======== > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > >> > > Dear Vinayji,> > > > > > Would you like to verify from your admirer-scholars whether all of> > them have heard about the rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" or not. You> > may be in for a big surprise.> > > > > > According to the Padma Purana the Bhagavad Purana is the highest and> > most authoritative among the Puranas. Bhagavad Purana treated the> > subject of Yuga classification in short but there is no ambiguity in> > its statements. Vishnu Purana supplements the same.> > > > > > As regards the Aryabhatiya I had the good fortune that a friend of> > mine in USA visited the India--Library in London and got a photocopy> > of Bhau Daji's paper on Aryabhatiya and he was very kind to pass on a> > copy of the same to me. I read Burgess's translation of the> > Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I> > believe that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from> > Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura. I understand that> > Suryasiddhanta expects us to update the astronomical data from time to> > time and I hope you paid attention to this area. My forays into> > Aryabhatiya and Suryasiddhanta were more for historical studies than> > for Astrology. > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:28 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil jee said : "Those who are not aware of the rule> > "Ankaanaam> > > > > > Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to 3 to 2 to 1"> > > > > > > > > > > > I may not be aware of "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati", but all those> > > > > > institutions and in dividuals are also ignorant of these things who> > > > > > accept me as an authority in these matters : cf.> > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay+Jha> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil jee is misinterpreting classical theory of time cycles. Most of> > > > > > the Puranas give only passing references to such things, excepting> > > > > > Narada Purana. Since Sunil jee is genuinely interested in this topic,> > > > > > I request him to read Narada Purana and esp Suryasiddhanta first of> > > > > > all, which deal with this topic most clearly and extensively.> > > > > > Aryabhatiya is the only ancient text which gives a different scale of> > > > > > yugas, but that was one of the chief the reasons why Aryabhatiya was> > > > > > rejected by mainstream scholars of Vedic-Puranic tradition.> > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya> > > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Vinayji,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not misquoted Vishnu puran. What I say is corroborated by> > > > > > Bhagavat Puran also. Bhagavat puran gives the ratio of> > > > > > Satya:Treta: Dwapara:Kaliyuga as 4:3:2:1 Those who are not aware of the> > > > > > rule "Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati" interprets it to be 4 to3 to 2 to1> > > > > > whereas it is 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 The concept of the Sandhi kala is given> > > > > > in the Bhagavat purana. Vishnu Purana gives one particular number> > > > > > dividing which by another particular number one has to arrive at the> > > > > > span of the Kali yuga. This figure comes out to be 4800 years. At the> > > > > > moment I do not have immediate acces to the relevant books. If you are> > > > > > really not able to locate in these puranas I shall surely take an> > > > > > extra effort to provide them to you.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many scholars in the past took the wrong ratio and arrived at the> > > > > > span of the Kaliyuga as 1200 years and then found that the Kaliyuga> > > > > > should have been over in 3102 - 1200 = 1902 BCE ie before the birth of> > > > > > Lord Buddha. But Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Avatara in the> > > > > > Kaliyuga. They could not solve this discrepancy and that is why they> > > > > > invented the concept that this figure of 1200 should be multiplied by> > > > > > 360 to arrive at the figure of 1200 X 360 = 432,000 years for> > > > > > Kaliyuga, saying that 1200 years refers to Divyavarsha, which must be> > > > > > multiplied by 360 to arrive at the human years.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>> > > > > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Date of Mahabharata> > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > > > Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:08 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had earlier stated that a mahayuga lasts for 12000 divine years> > > > > > > which is equal to 432000 human years, according to all ancient> > > > > > > sources, and Kaliyuga is its 10th part. Aryabhatiya is a sole> > > > > > > exception, which gives a higher propotion to Kaliyuga. Vishnu Purana> > > > > > > is being misquoted by Sunil jee (take my comments positively, and show> > > > > > > me the shloka, then I will give more tangible proofs to the contrary).> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some NRIs are also propagating a theory of Dvapar yuga at present.> > > > > > > They are too much impressed with present day material progress to> > > > > > > value ancient ideas. If the ancient time-cycle is wrong, then one must> > > > > > > drop the very notion of such yugas and become completely modernized.> > > > > > > Why tamper with ancient idesa?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> > > > > > > <rajiventerprises@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Sunil ji,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thank you, this is what I was looking for. Acceptance of the current> > > > > > > > Yuga as Dwapara Yuga.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > regards,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Bhaskar.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>

[Guest guest]

In our country why the frauds proliferate?

Here in India with mystical background, any fraud can pass off as a mystic and we have lost the vigor to call a spade a spade. It is not a sin to abuse a fraud. In ancient times of Kings, frauds would have lost their heads if they failed to prove their claims. But in modern democracy any fraud can make benefit out of the democratic lousiness in dealing with such guys. That is what we see today now in self styled Gurus and Godmen.

Astronomy as a science is the same everywhere. Ganita is the underlying unity and observation is the test.

chandra hari

 

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> Namaste Sunil jee,> > I had expected a better reply. You entirely missed the point. Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar added beeja samskaaras to manda and shigra paridhyamsha, among others, in order to make the results of siddhantic method approximately equal to those of modern physical astronomy. I wasted much time in making softwares on such lines. Siddhantic method is completely incompatible with physical astronomy. For instance, siddhantic method does not take into account the effects of other planets on a planet's motions. Planetary distances have vast differences : Siddhantic distance of Sun from Earth is over 27 times leass than 1 AU. Hence, the work of Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar was accepted neither by scientists nor by traditional astrologers. You have not worked on these problems yourself and are relying upon conclusions put forth by others (I beg apology if you feel offended, my purpose is not to offend you but to attract your attention towards a neglected aspect of> astrology), that is why you are missing my point. > > Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar has param manda paridhyamsha for Sun within a range 13 to 14 degrees, whereas modern observations suggest a value of 12 degrees and 3 minutes as a mean value if eccentricity of Earth's orbit is taken to be 0.016733.> > Perhaps you are busy in other activities. I asked too much. If possible, please read my questions again and try to find some answer. I do not want Samanta Chandra Shekhar's personal theory, but the exact meaning of 22 shlokas of Suryasiddhanta deliberately omitted by E Burgess(but present in all editions by pandits, eg by Chowkhambha).> > I again repeat : Siddhantic method is incompatible with physical astronomy. Both are equally valid in their respective fields : physical astronomy is valid for physical world, while siddhantic method is indespensable for astrology,provided accuracy of predictions is held to be the criterion of truth in astrology and heavenly positions of physical planets are forgotten for the time being. Too much of scientific training makes one, more often than not, impervious to this fact. Please do not take mt remrks as a personal affront or as an insult to science, and try to see the point I am raising, for which I have started receiving abuses from persons like Chandra Hari, who evade discussions and relish in abuses and false allegations. 99% persons using internet will refuse to even listen to me, but not at my loss, because I do not sell my software. Refusal to test others' ideas is the hallmark of some modern intellectual !> > -VJ> > > > > > > > ________________________________> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, January 8, 2009 2:49:33 PM> Re:Date of Mahabharata> > > Dear Vinayji,> > We don't have to reinvent the wheel. All the necessary work, which you are referring to, has already been done by Pathani Samanta or Pandit Samanta Chadrasekhar and it is all there in his book "Sjddhanta Darpan", which has 24 chapters. In that book there are 2184 verses, which he composed himself and he also quoted 316 verses. He has written the book in Sanskrit and as you know Sanskrit you should not have problem in going through that. This book has been published from Delhi. > > This book was written before the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra of Sankara Balakrishna Dixit was published but it did not find mention in the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra, as it got published only after the latter book was published. > > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay ji and Chandra Hariji,

 

Do not feel isolated please. The positives of your rendering of what you

have studied will be remembered while the negatives will be obiliterated

from the memories of the onlookers, just like the positives of Chandra

Hariji will be taken in, while the abuse ignored.

 

Let us not allow these ugly incidents to stray us from the path of

further studies and acquisition of knowledge whether its Your goodself

or the other good gentleman Shri Chandra Hariji.

 

What both of you can contribute to astrology and to us practising

astrologers please do so, while the other topics - facts which we cannot

understand, authenticate or confirm, negate, justify , due to our

limited knowledge of history, geogrphy, astronomy, sanskrit and ancient

writers and what they wrote, you may please xclude these, so as to

avoid any frictions.

 

My request to both of you.

 

regards,

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Namaste Sunil jee,

>

> I had expected a better reply. You entirely missed the point. Pt

Samanta Chandra Shekhar added beeja samskaaras to manda and shigra

paridhyamsha, among others, in order to make the results of siddhantic

method approximately equal to those of modern physical astronomy. I

wasted much time in making softwares on such lines. Siddhantic method is

completely incompatible with physical astronomy. For instance,

siddhantic method does not take into account the effects of other

planets on a planet's motions. Planetary distances have vast differences

: Siddhantic distance of Sun from Earth is over 27 times leass than 1

AU. Hence, the work of Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar was accepted neither

by scientists nor by traditional astrologers. You have not worked on

these problems yourself and are relying upon conclusions put forth by

others (I beg apology if you feel offended, my purpose is not to offend

you but to attract your attention towards a neglected aspect of

> astrology), that is why you are missing my point.

>

> Pt Samanta Chandra Shekhar has param manda paridhyamsha for Sun within

a range 13 to 14 degrees, whereas modern observations suggest a value of

12 degrees and 3 minutes as a mean value if eccentricity of Earth's

orbit is taken to be 0.016733.

>

> Perhaps you are busy in other activities. I asked too much. If

possible, please read my questions again and try to find some answer. I

do not want Samanta Chandra Shekhar's personal theory, but the exact

meaning of 22 shlokas of Suryasiddhanta deliberately omitted by E

Burgess(but present in all editions by pandits, eg by Chowkhambha).

>

> I again repeat : Siddhantic method is incompatible with physical

astronomy. Both are equally valid in their respective fields : physical

astronomy is valid for physical world, while siddhantic method is

indespensable for astrology,provided accuracy of predictions is held to

be the criterion of truth in astrology and heavenly positions of

physical planets are forgotten for the time being. Too much of

scientific training makes one, more often than not, impervious to this

fact. Please do not take mt remrks as a personal affront or as an insult

to science, and try to see the point I am raising, for which I have

started receiving abuses from persons like Chandra Hari, who evade

discussions and relish in abuses and false allegations. 99% persons

using internet will refuse to even listen to me, but not at my loss,

because I do not sell my software. Refusal to test others' ideas is the

hallmark of some modern intellectual !

>

> -VJ

>

________________________________

> Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

>

> Thursday, January 8, 2009 2:49:33 PM

> Re:Date of Mahabharata

>

>

> Dear Vinayji,

>

> We don't have to reinvent the wheel. All the necessary work, which you

are referring to, has already been done by Pathani Samanta or Pandit

Samanta Chadrasekhar and it is all there in his book " Sjddhanta Darpan " ,

which has 24 chapters. In that book there are 2184 verses, which he

composed himself and he also quoted 316 verses. He has written the book

in Sanskrit and as you know Sanskrit you should not have problem in

going through that. This book has been published from Delhi.

>

> This book was written before the Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra of Sankara

Balakrishna Dixit was published but it did not find mention in the

Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra, as it got published only after the latter book

was published.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

[Guest guest]

I read Burgess's translation of the

Suryasiddhanta and would like to read yours work on that too. I believe

that Suryasiddhanta was composed by Mayasura, who was from

Pragjyotishpur, the kingdom of Narakasura

Dear all,

 

I do not want to get into any controversy here but let us see some points

very clearly

 

1. It

is Bailey who first wrote about Surya siddhanta in his book Indian Astronomy. There he had estimated that "accurate

astronomical observations had been made in Inda, probably before 3000 bce" This

is a conclusion which is justified on independent evidence.

2. The

Vedic sacrificial rites had a close connection with astronomical calculations

and several of Vedic deities are in actual, are cosmological figures rather

than mere deities representing the immediate natural forces

3. In

any case, as the vedic rites were regulated by the position of moon with

reference to starts, they must be held to pres suppose accurate astro

observations, which in fact have come to be a religious necessity . It is therefore reasonable to argue , a

priori, that an extensive astronomical knowledge was obtained in India even

during the Vedic times, which is as new evidence shows , is much prior to the

times of Harappan civilization

4. It

is Pandit Satyavrata Samasrami who had showed that Vedic seers had knowledge of

motions of planets – at least five and the causes of solar and lunar eclipses. It is very reasonably accepted that a

knowledge of solstice and equinox points existed on the part of Vedic authors.

5. Surya

siddhanta, by the very confession of Ebenezer Burgess was being taught in

Indian schools at that time

 

With these facts in mind, we also have to consider the following facts which

make the intentions of Burgess very

clear

1. Burgess

is a Christian missionary

2. He

could not digest the discussion by Bailey who pushed the date of Indian

astronomy to 4th Millennium which directly contradicts the Biblical

faith

And hence, he went to great lengths of pain to prove that what Bailey wrote was

nonsense.

Well, we can not hide that what Burgess wrote was

all with prejudiced mind and should be summarily rejected, what ever be the

other credentials of him.

 

My two pence.

 

Kishore patnaik