Guest guest Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Vinayji, 1) You say that the location of the physical planets are different from the actual locations of the grahas but Vedavyasa does not agree with you. Will you say that Vedavyasa did not have spiritual knowledge which you claim to possess? Vedavyasa said that at the time of the Mahabharata war the Saturn (physical planet) was in Visakha nakshatra (physical location) and that it was tormenting Rohini. 2) You said that Suniljee wants you to demonstrate your computing power like a madaari. Far from it I wanted to you to demonstarte you computing abilities like Shakuntal devi did and nobody has any doubt on her computing ability. Do you want to say Shakuntala Devi is a madaari(ni)? Why do you interpret things in the wrong way more usually than otherwuse? Or is it that you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic 3) As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms. 4) Vinayji please speak out only what is true. Which foul word did I use? Please have the guts to tell the forum. Please leave your dirty tactics of false accusations. Also your claim that one has to be a lifeong Brahmachari to get spiritual knowledge is all bullshit. In the ancient times all the sages like Vasishtha were married. The ancient Kumaras and only a few others were balabrahmachari. From the biographical details that we have of Adi Sankaracharya he told his mother that his longevity (ayu) was less and that he would die unless he became a sanyashi. I do not think Adi Sankaracharya wanted to fool his mother. Moreove of the sankara mathas the Sankaracharyas of the Govardhana Math were grihashthis in their purvashrama. 5) You never told that your book on Suryasiddhanta was on the Internet website but you pretended to get annoyed with me and you said that you are going to delete that from your website so that I don't get to see it. Please do not play such dirty tricks. If you want to delete it you can very well do it as it is your prerogative. Now I am convinced that a book coming from a person of such attitude may not be worth reading. 6) I agree that in the AIA group Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only because of your unproven and unprovable tall claims. I had, at one time, a lot of correspondence with Chandrahariji and we respected each other even though we did not agree in several things. All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. They never used a single strong word against you. In fact I also supported you in the beginning. But your much- vaunted scholarship remained only in your assertions and claims. In your every mail you used bring up what Chandrahariji wrote in the beginning to you and you threatened that you will quit that group and to keep your word you had to quit. Sreenadhji, the owners and the moderators were very tolerant towards you and I do not think that you were ousted from the group but yourself made your position very precarious there and you left ignominiously. -SKB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 Vinayji,1)You said QuoteHow physical astronomy can prove that a Shani in Vishakha can "torment" Rohini ?UnquoteI thought that you know that the Jyotish shastra includes both astrology and physical astronomy and they are clubbed together as both are inter-related. Any astrologer worth his salt knows that Shani in Visakha can aspect Rohini. Vedavyasa did mention physical phenomena when he said the Sun was in Visakha and when he said about the eclipses within 13 days etc. anot your imaginary Saurpaksha.2)You said that to prove your mathematical ability you will have to travel round the world like Shakuntala Devi does. Far from it. Shakuntala Devi does not tour the world to prove her ability. She gets invitation because of her mathemetical and other abilities. I said that it will be better for you to prove it if you want others to believe in what you say.3) I was the first to tell you in the AIA forum that according to Manu a married person can also become Brahmachari provided he restricts his physical intimaccies. That was in reply to your statement that you have insight into Suryasiddhanta only because you are meeting the requirements such as remaining unmarried and being a life-long Brahmachari and that you take one meal a day and follow all the required rules and that you do not sleep in the night etc. and you wanted all to believe in these claims of yours. 4)Your imagination about the separate locations of the physical planets and the presiding deities of the planets has not been mentioned in any ancient text. Without any text reference from the shastras how do you want us to aacept it just because you think so or your guru has told you so? The presiding deity of a planet can move like a yogi can move through his astral body but like the yogi cannot really abandon his body until he leaves the body for good.so also the planet has a physical identity. One cannot separate the physical identity from the planet.5)Regarding ayanamsha as a Saurpaksha concept also you did not give any reference to back your statement.6)You do not know the meaning of the phrase "good riddance". When you said that you do not want to have anything with me then I said "good riddance"7)You are miscontruing whatever one says if that is not to your liking. you think that you can go on claiming anything and nobody should question you. You say that to know whether some of your claims are right or wrong one will have to go and meet the professors, who are known to you. You does not believe in independent proofs. When these professors depart from this world the proofs will go with them. You are under wrong impression. Asking for proof is not character assassination. I wrote to you the last mail only to clarify as you dragged my name in your mail to Bhaskarji and you made false allegations against me that I have used foul words against you and that I raised the topic of wine in Tantra etc. Do you think that the character assassination that you are doing and that your maligning of Tantra etc. should have gone unopposed?-SKB--- On Fri, 4/3/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 1:26 AM TO ALL : Mr Sunil Bhattacharya is in a fighting mood, and is trying to forge an alliance with Mr Bhaskar against me (that is why he posted here, guessing I was fighting with Mr Bhaskar). The fact is I have no time for useless bullfights. I do not want to waste my and others' time by starting a useless feud in forums. I believe his attitude cannot be changed, but I hope following passages recently sent by me to another user may be useful in making some important points clear : <<<< " There are two branches of Vedic Astrology. One is Saurpaksha, other is Drikpaksha. These terms are unfamiliar to internet users, because traditional texts hitherto untranslated into any other language dealt with these concepts, and Ketaki System is a sole exception in modern age which popularized these terms. Drikpaksha means the material or physical world perceived by means of sense organs. In Kantian terminology, it is phenomenal world. Modern astronomy deals with this world. The other trend, Saurpaksha, dealt with the other higher world of deities who cannot be seen directly by our sense organs. In Kantian words, it is noumenal world. Ancient Vedic astrology was totally based upon this noumenal world and had no connection with phenomenal world. Perhaps it was due to God's desire that materialists should be kept away from this higher world that both worlds use similar names for planets. But Saurpakshiya planets have nothing in common with Drikpakshiya planets, excepting names. The latter is a physical dead thing which we see in the sky. The former is a god whose position is different and cannot be seen directly. Distance of Drikpakshiya Sun is 149.6 million Kms from us, while Saurpakshiya Sun is only 5.5 million Kms from us : a difference of over 27 times ! Drikpakshiya world rotates once every 42000 years with respect to the fixed Saurpakshiya world. In early 2000 AD, both worlds coincided, as far as mean positions of planets are concerned... Ayanamsha is purely a Saurpakshiya concept. Drikpakshiya world of modern astronomy does not show such a phenomenon. Modern astronomy has no equivalent for this term, and even English speakers use the Sanskrit word "ayanamsha". 19th century authors like Colebrooke started imposing modern astronomy upon ancient Vedic concepts, which resulted into present day misconceptions about ayanamsha. Lahiri followed this modern method and identified the star Spica with Vedic (Saurpakshiya) star Chitra because according to this logic ayanamsha was found to be zero in 285 AD (you say 280 AD approximately) . It was therefore concluded that both sidereal and tropical zodiacs separated around 285 AD. But the inherent weakness in this method is that Chitra is not the starting point of any zodiac, that point is beginning of Aries (FPA). There is no visible star at sidereal or tropical FPA. This modern method is based upon a fallacious assumption that Drikpakshiya Tropical means Saurpakshiya Saayana. The concept of precession was known in ancient India with a high degree of precision ( cf. http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Ayanamsha+ vs+Precession ), but was never used in astrology. It had no connection with ayanamsha. The latter was related to Trepidation or libration of the equinoxes. In spite of knowledge of precession in the time of Hipparchus, Trepidation was used by almost all astrologers in Greece, Egypt, Arabia, India, etc, down to the time of Copernicus. It was only afrer renaissance that Trepidation was rejected by physical scientists and followers of material science imposed the concept of precession upon ayanamsha. Trepidation is a Saurpakshiya concept and is not found to exist in the Drikpakshiya (material world). Similarly, precession is a non-Saurpakshiya concept of physical world. We cannot observe the Saurpakshiya world directly. Then, what is the proof of its existence ? Material astronomy can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of non-material entities. Predictive astrology is the only proof.">>>> --- Mr Sunil Bhattacharya' s first charge on me is : >>>>" You say that the location of the physical planets are different from the actual locations of the grahas but Vedavyasa does not agree with you. Will you say that Vedavyasa did not have spiritual knowledge which you claim to possess? Vedavyasa said that at the time of the Mahabharata war the Saturn (physical planet) was in Visakha nakshatra (physical location) and that it was tormenting Rohini."<<<< << Where did Vyaasa Jee say he was implying the "physical planet" ? Vyaasa jee has mentioned countless of times that grahas are deities, and everyone knows deities can be perceived only when they want to make themselves visible. How physical astronomy can prove that a Shani in Vishakha can "torment" Rohini ? His second charge is that he wanted me to demonstrate my computational ability. I had clearly said that I am not Ramanujam (or Shakuntala Devi), and my computational abilities are due to mastery of a lot of mathematical tables since early boyhood, like logarithmic and antilog tables. I had mentioned the name and departments of a university where my computational ability was checked. Instead of asking those professors, Mr Sunil Bhattacharya says "you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic." Why should I start touring the globe like Shakuntala Devi, stopping my research works ? Mr Sunil Bhattacharya is certainly not sincere and is after character assassination. If he really doubts me, he can come to my town ( I will bear his expenses in my town, but not travelling expenses) and test me. I believe he will decline this offer and find new excuses to malign me. His next point is >>>>"your claim that one has to be a lifeong Brahmachari to get spiritual knowledge is all bullshit. In the ancient times all the sages like Vasishtha were married. The ancient Kumaras and only a few others were balabrahmachari. "<<<< He does not know the difference between a Brahmachaari and a Baala-brahmachaari, although he uses both terms. Ancient sages were married and were Brahmachaaris at the same time. But married Brahmachaaris are not Baala-Brahmachaaris . Mr Sunil Bhattacharya quotes Mahabharata every now and then , but only in a distorted manner in order to prove his wrong points. In Mahabharata, when Ashwatthaamaa said he does not know how to retract a Brahmaastra, Lord Krishna said Ashwatthaamaa could not do so because he was not a Brahmachaari, while Arjuna could retract it because Arjuna was a Brahmachaari. Ashwatthaamaa was a celibate brahmin of a high lineage, and there is no episode which can prove his fall from Brahmachaarya, excepting a brief reference to presence of dancers in his tent at Kuruksetra during war. Arjuna was known to have more than one wife and more than one offspring, but rejected Urvashi's offer because in Urvashi's offer there Kaama was merely a means of carnal pleasure which Arjuna had to reject, while Kaama according to Dharma, ie intended for saving the lineage, is Lord Himself as told in Gita. Arjuna was Gudaakesha, one who has attained Yoganidra by conquering normal sleep. He was a real tapasvi and a real sadhu. Hence he was a Brahmachaari. If Lord Krishna and Vyaasa Jee say so, why should I accept Mr Sunils' wrong definition of brahmacharya as a mere state of remaining unmarried. A single instance of seminal ejaculation destroys brahmacharya. That is why bad company and taamasika foods and drinks are forbidden for saatvika persons. Worls Health Organization was not founded for upholding brahmacharya and is free to eulogize a few tolas of wine. But a single drop of wine is worse than cobra venom for a real brahmachaari. Many doctors prescribe wine , meat, fish, eggs, but forget that Homo Sapiens was evolved out of a non-carnivorous family and unnatural food habits are giving rise to a lot of new diseases. I did not join forums to propagate brahmacharya, and Sunil ji is free to follow his ideas, but he should not distort ancient terms to suit his personal habits. His next point is that I was falsely complaining of being abused by him. He never used obscene words for me or for anyone. But as far as I know, I am the only person who became a target of his false and often abusive (not obscene) remarks. Even his present mail contains words like "dirty tactics" , "you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic" , "bullshit" , 'unprovable tall claims", "left ignominiously" which cannot be said to be conducive for a healthy discussion. His most provocative and abusive words are his deliberately false statements : (1)that Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only (actually, Chandrahariji stopped correspondence when he leant that my works were recognized by some leading scientific institutions, and then Mr Sreenadh and Mr Sunil Bhattacharya were hired by Chandrahariji to spread rumours that I never delivered anything at Indian Institute of Science ( cf. http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc ). Mr Sunil Bhattacharya even poked fun at my scientific paper which was accepted by CAOS, IISc. I asked these fellows to contact CAOS, IISc whether I was a liar or not, but they had an agenda to malign me. He falsely says "in the AIA group Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only because of your unproven and unprovable tall claims." These "strong words" were fit for a libel suit , and Chandrahariji used such words even in his last mails concerning me, not only in his initial mail. I am pained to note that in spite of my tolerance of Chandrahariji' s abuses, he and a handful of his followers never thought that I am a tolerant person, and intesified their offensive against me, denying any chance of free and fair discussion. When I recognized that Chandrahariji is a dishonest person and wants to literally crush me just because I know the practical methods of Suryasiddhantic computations which he wrongly interprets and falsely projects himself as an expert of Suryasiddhanta, I started refuting him, and challenged him for an intellectual debate, after which he left the field and his followers started abusing me, some of them even sent me obscene messages. Mr Sunil Bhattacharya falsely says : "In your every mail you used bring up what Chandrahariji wrote in the beginning to you." Chandrahariji abused me till his last mail, and in every reply I requested him to calm down and discuss, but in vain. Mr Sreenadh and Mr Bhaskar once tried to request Chandrahariji to discuss the matter calmly instead of abusing. But they failed. When I asked Chandrahariji for a shaastraartha, his followers were mad with anger and started abusing me. Mr Sunil Bhattacharya falsely says : "Sreenadhji, the owners and the moderators were very tolerant towards you." Sreenadhji was really good in the beginning, but when Chandrahariji brought the issue to a point of no return, I started challenging his ideas and invited him for a shaastraartha, Chandrahariji went into hibernation and Sreenadhji launched a venomous attack upon me, in AIA, in private emails, and in Allahabad Conference where I was instrumental in allowing him a chance to speak ( there too he abused and left the spot, without hearing the answers). Mr Sunil Bhattacharya deliberately forgets these facts and is misreporting here just to create a hostile environment against me. Had he behaved like a gentleman and refrained from impolite words, why I should have denied him the access to my Hindi book, whose English summary still can be read at three websites, one is Australian, another is Wikipedia (history tab), and the third is mine . I removed my book from the jyotirvidya site because the revised version could not be uploaded there due to size and had to be uploaded on another site. A lot of people in the world today are under a hallucination that material world is everything and ancient sages had no knowledge which modern science has not discovered. Their refusal to discuss and test springs from this materialist belief. Among these materialists, only those may be able to fairly judge the truth about astrology who keep away from wine, women and selling of astrology. I have not set these rules, these are ancient guidelines which moderners want to deny. I was glad when Mr Sunil Bhattacharya said that he wants to get rid of me. Why he has again decidedd to waste my and others' time must have some cause. That cause is a desire to crush the traditional astrology as based on Suryasiddhanta. Although all internet users are users of softwares based on physical astronomy, the wish to kill Suryasiddhantic astrology is a wishful thinking, majority of Indians stil use and will continue to use panchangas and kundalis based on crude or refined tables originally derived from Suryasiddhanta. The refusal to test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta is wrongly projected as "scientific" spirit by these enthusiasts. Scientific method does not reject a thing before testing it. I am abstaining from using bad words about Mr Sunil Bhattacharya. I left AIA because my time was wasted over refutals of false charges and abuses by these persons, who are now after me in other forums. If I am a bad guy, why he does not forget me ? Has he no noble task at hand ? I have no cure for prejudice. Some people suppose anyone finding something useful in ancient texts must be an obscurantist and must be silenced by force, or by means of abuses. -VJ ============ ==== ============ ==== , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Vinayji, > > 1) > You say that the location of the physical planets are different from the actual locations of the grahas but Vedavyasa does not agree with you. Will you say that Vedavyasa did not have spiritual knowledge which you claim to possess? Vedavyasa said that at the time of the Mahabharata war the Saturn (physical planet) was in Visakha nakshatra (physical location) and that it was tormenting Rohini. > > 2) > You said that Suniljee wants you to demonstrate your computing power like a madaari. Far from it I wanted to you to demonstarte you computing abilities like Shakuntal devi did and nobody has any doubt on her computing ability. Do you want to say Shakuntala Devi is a madaari(ni)? Why do you interpret things in the wrong way more usually than otherwuse? Or is it that you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic > > 3) As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms. > > 4) Vinayji please speak out only what is true. Which foul word did I use? Please have the guts to tell the forum. Please leave your dirty tactics of false accusations. Also your claim that one has to be a lifeong Brahmachari to get spiritual knowledge is all bullshit. In the ancient times all the sages like Vasishtha were married. The ancient Kumaras and only a few others were balabrahmachari. From the biographical details that we have of Adi Sankaracharya he told his mother that his longevity (ayu) was less and that he would die unless he became a sanyashi. I do not think Adi Sankaracharya wanted to fool his mother. Moreove of the sankara mathas the Sankaracharyas of the Govardhana Math were grihashthis in their purvashrama. > > 5) You never told that your book on Suryasiddhanta was on the Internet website but you pretended to get annoyed with me and you said that you are going to delete that from your website so that I don't get to see it. Please do not play such dirty tricks. If you want to delete it you can very well do it as it is your prerogative. Now I am convinced that a book coming from a person of such attitude may not be worth reading. > > 6) > I agree that in the AIA group Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only because of your unproven and unprovable tall claims. I had, at one time, a lot of correspondence with Chandrahariji and we respected each other even though we did not agree in several things. All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. They never used a single strong word against you. In fact I also supported you in the beginning. But your much- vaunted scholarship remained only in your assertions and claims. In your every mail you used bring up what Chandrahariji wrote in the beginning to you and you threatened that you will quit that group and to keep your word you had to quit. Sreenadhji, the owners and the moderators were very tolerant towards you and I do not think that you were ousted from the group but yourself made your position very precarious there and you left ignominiously. > > -SKB > > > --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> > > Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 9:37 PM > > > > > > > Bhaskar Jee, > > You will never know what secrets I possess due to your foul language. > > You say : "I could see that you were not being able to manage strong solid arguments or proofs of what you claimed in front of Marg, which weakness she understood and played with you, till you left back doors." > > Margie is adamant on discussing ONLY the physical proofs of astronomical observation in ancient India, brcause she knows that ancient indian astrology was not based on physical observation but on revelations. She has an agenda, and does not want to discuss what India really can offer. She has a negative attitude which no one can change. She and you do not know what I wanted to offer, because I never explained what I have. My unwillingness to explain is taken by you to be my inability. You say : "Unfortunately you have been able to prove nothing of your tall claims on a single forum." AIA was the only forum where I had agreed to provode proofs and discuss in detail, but a handful of cronies hired by Sreenadh never stopped abusing me and never allowed any free and fair discussion. In no other forum I started such a discussion. I never wanted to prove anything to you, because you were never interested in anything about my methods and often wanted to know > everything in a paragraph which was impossible. You are a professional astrologer and I am a software developer plus a researcher. We are poles apart. I avoid clients. I am not you competitor because I do not earn money from astrology. I never wanted to become a me,ber of any forum. It was Sreenadh who requested me to join, and later singled me out for abusive bahaviour without any provocation. Later, some other forums invited me and asked me to join their and other forums. Sohams is the only forum which had not invited me. But I joined Sohams because matters pertaining to me were raised there by others. > > I know forums are not a right place for me, because all these forums are populated by users of softwares made along modern astronomy which I have found to be far inferior ASTROLOGICALLY in comparison to Suryasiddhantic software. Initially I also used and made softwares based on modern astronomy. I have no hatred for modern scient, I am a recognized scientist myself. it is the misapplication of physical science in a metaphysical discipline like astrology which I oppose. But if someone does not want to test Suryasiddhantic software, it is not going to harm me in the least, because I do not sell any software. > > You say : "I still do not understand what secrets are you trying to give us, except that by using your software we will become very good astrologers ? Otherwise we are not so ? This is really boasting and impudence... " > > I am a software developer who used principles different from those used by all other software developers. You are passing judgment on my work without testing my work. If you are not interested in testing my software, I will never ask you to test it. But , then, why are you wasting my and you time ? Forget me and my works if you find it not worth testing and reading. > > You are mistaken in saying that I am trying to give some secrets to you. I never tried. Secrets are given to worthy persons. The first criterion of worth is Curiosity (jijnaasaa). You have no jijnaasaa about my method. why should I waste my time over you ?? > > I clearly mentioned my methods with practical examples in a non- forum last year. Those who read my explanations are using my software and reporting it to be performing wonderfully. Some persons fail to install it. But only two persons have taken an oath to waste my time over futile discussions leading nowhere : you and Mr Sunil Bhattacharya. These two persons deliberately diverted my topic in AIA on Tantric Astrology to wine and women, knowing full well that a lifelong brahmachaari like me will not like to participate in such a discussion. Winw and women have no place in Tantric Astrology. Ancient tantric texts are the original sources of 84 chakras, some of whom are well known, like panch-shalaakaa and sapta-shalaakaa chakras, sapta-naadi chakra, sarvatobhadra chakra, koorma chakra, etc. A good topic was destroyed. Recently, Mr Sunil Bhattacharya wasted a lot of my time and then started using foul words. you are also adamant on wasting my and your > time. Have you no business ? If I am a bad guy, either forget me or ask the moderators to ban me. Do not send useless and uncivil posts. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> > > Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:02:04 AM > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> > > Dear Vinay jee, > > Ha Ha. That was a good one. > > See now you dont understand, The other people who are against indian culture and Indian vedic astrology, would now take advantage after seeing this differences between us, which i did not want. > > Being inebriated, is not my forte unfortunately. > > I mentoned about your being crushed only because I could see that you were not being able to manage strong solid arguments or proofs of what you claimed in front of Marg, which weakness she understood and played with you, till you left back doors. > > See how you have called me ignorant, the Moderator here as ignorant, but i still feel that You have some knowledge, and I also feel that Marg has got good knowledge and the Moderator here is the wisest person whom i have ever encountered with. He will not enter the thread unless it leads to someone abusing the other one. Now do you call these statements as under the influence of liquor , or the ones made by Your goodeself ( ??). > > The mail you have just presented, I have received the likes of same, in thousands on various groups, which still does not make me Pompous, impudent or proud, because I know my shortcomings in astrology, which these people who send me praise mails do not. I always have my feet planted firmly on the ground. > > Unfortunately you have been able to prove nothing of your tall claims on a single forum, since last 6 months of lingering on these, and you tried to impress a smart member Marg here and once again showed the torn spots in your claims which amount to nought. > > I still do not understand what secrets are you trying to give us, except that by using your software we will become very good astrologers ? Otherwise we are not so ? This is really boasting and impudence, and not what I have mentioned which speaks of confidence in my knowledge acquired through years of study and nights spent in reading and analysing. > > I seriously think that you need some rest and time to study actually what you are trying to claim. because neither have you proved yourself to me, neither to marg, and neither to any member of the various groups you have entered and been showed the door, I am sorry to say. > > Now lets stop discussing when you have nothing in your kitty, otherwise the Moderator here will throw me even out, because of you. > > regards/Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 Dear Sunilji,Recently my astrologer friend said that the exaltation of a planet in a house is meaningful only at specified degrees, is it true, or whether the belonging of a planet to a house itself is sufficient to shower at least some beneficial aspects to the native. As I have told you earlier I'm a novice to the subject and hence your expert views shall help me to learn further.with regards and respects - R.kannan , 04.04.2009 --- On Fri, 3/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>To: Cc: Date: Friday, 3 April, 2009, 1:21 PM Vinayji,1)You said QuoteHow physical astronomy can prove that a Shani in Vishakha can "torment" Rohini ?UnquoteI thought that you know that the Jyotish shastra includes both astrology and physical astronomy and they are clubbed together as both are inter-related. Any astrologer worth his salt knows that Shani in Visakha can aspect Rohini. Vedavyasa did mention physical phenomena when he said the Sun was in Visakha and when he said about the eclipses within 13 days etc. anot your imaginary Saurpaksha.2)You said that to prove your mathematical ability you will have to travel round the world like Shakuntala Devi does. Far from it. Shakuntala Devi does not tour the world to prove her ability. She gets invitation because of her mathemetical and other abilities. I said that it will be better for you to prove it if you want others to believe in what you say.3) I was the first to tell you in the AIA forum that according to Manu a married person can also become Brahmachari provided he restricts his physical intimaccies. That was in reply to your statement that you have insight into Suryasiddhanta only because you are meeting the requirements such as remaining unmarried and being a life-long Brahmachari and that you take one meal a day and follow all the required rules and that you do not sleep in the night etc. and you wanted all to believe in these claims of yours. 4)Your imagination about the separate locations of the physical planets and the presiding deities of the planets has not been mentioned in any ancient text. Without any text reference from the shastras how do you want us to aacept it just because you think so or your guru has told you so? The presiding deity of a planet can move like a yogi can move through his astral body but like the yogi cannot really abandon his body until he leaves the body for good.so also the planet has a physical identity. One cannot separate the physical identity from the planet.5)Regarding ayanamsha as a Saurpaksha concept also you did not give any reference to back your statement.6)You do not know the meaning of the phrase "good riddance". When you said that you do not want to have anything with me then I said "good riddance"7)You are miscontruing whatever one says if that is not to your liking. you think that you can go on claiming anything and nobody should question you. You say that to know whether some of your claims are right or wrong one will have to go and meet the professors, who are known to you. You does not believe in independent proofs. When these professors depart from this world the proofs will go with them. You are under wrong impression. Asking for proof is not character assassination. I wrote to you the last mail only to clarify as you dragged my name in your mail to Bhaskarji and you made false allegations against me that I have used foul words against you and that I raised the topic of wine in Tantra etc. Do you think that the character assassination that you are doing and that your maligning of Tantra etc. should have gone unopposed?-SKB--- On Fri, 4/3/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>Friday, April 3, 2009, 1:26 AM TO ALL : Mr Sunil Bhattacharya is in a fighting mood, and is trying to forge an alliance with Mr Bhaskar against me (that is why he posted here, guessing I was fighting with Mr Bhaskar). The fact is I have no time for useless bullfights. I do not want to waste my and others' time by starting a useless feud in forums. I believe his attitude cannot be changed, but I hope following passages recently sent by me to another user may be useful in making some important points clear : <<<< " There are two branches of Vedic Astrology. One is Saurpaksha, other is Drikpaksha. These terms are unfamiliar to internet users, because traditional texts hitherto untranslated into any other language dealt with these concepts, and Ketaki System is a sole exception in modern age which popularized these terms. Drikpaksha means the material or physical world perceived by means of sense organs. In Kantian terminology, it is phenomenal world. Modern astronomy deals with this world. The other trend, Saurpaksha, dealt with the other higher world of deities who cannot be seen directly by our sense organs. In Kantian words, it is noumenal world. Ancient Vedic astrology was totally based upon this noumenal world and had no connection with phenomenal world. Perhaps it was due to God's desire that materialists should be kept away from this higher world that both worlds use similar names for planets. But Saurpakshiya planets have nothing in common with Drikpakshiya planets, excepting names. The latter is a physical dead thing which we see in the sky. The former is a god whose position is different and cannot be seen directly. Distance of Drikpakshiya Sun is 149.6 million Kms from us, while Saurpakshiya Sun is only 5.5 million Kms from us : a difference of over 27 times ! Drikpakshiya world rotates once every 42000 years with respect to the fixed Saurpakshiya world. In early 2000 AD, both worlds coincided, as far as mean positions of planets are concerned... Ayanamsha is purely a Saurpakshiya concept. Drikpakshiya world of modern astronomy does not show such a phenomenon. Modern astronomy has no equivalent for this term, and even English speakers use the Sanskrit word "ayanamsha". 19th century authors like Colebrooke started imposing modern astronomy upon ancient Vedic concepts, which resulted into present day misconceptions about ayanamsha. Lahiri followed this modern method and identified the star Spica with Vedic (Saurpakshiya) star Chitra because according to this logic ayanamsha was found to be zero in 285 AD (you say 280 AD approximately) . It was therefore concluded that both sidereal and tropical zodiacs separated around 285 AD. But the inherent weakness in this method is that Chitra is not the starting point of any zodiac, that point is beginning of Aries (FPA). There is no visible star at sidereal or tropical FPA. This modern method is based upon a fallacious assumption that Drikpakshiya Tropical means Saurpakshiya Saayana. The concept of precession was known in ancient India with a high degree of precision ( cf. http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Ayanamsha+ vs+Precession ), but was never used in astrology. It had no connection with ayanamsha. The latter was related to Trepidation or libration of the equinoxes. In spite of knowledge of precession in the time of Hipparchus, Trepidation was used by almost all astrologers in Greece, Egypt, Arabia, India, etc, down to the time of Copernicus. It was only afrer renaissance that Trepidation was rejected by physical scientists and followers of material science imposed the concept of precession upon ayanamsha. Trepidation is a Saurpakshiya concept and is not found to exist in the Drikpakshiya (material world). Similarly, precession is a non-Saurpakshiya concept of physical world. We cannot observe the Saurpakshiya world directly. Then, what is the proof of its existence ? Material astronomy can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of non-material entities. Predictive astrology is the only proof.">>>> --- Mr Sunil Bhattacharya' s first charge on me is : >>>>" You say that the location of the physical planets are different from the actual locations of the grahas but Vedavyasa does not agree with you. Will you say that Vedavyasa did not have spiritual knowledge which you claim to possess? Vedavyasa said that at the time of the Mahabharata war the Saturn (physical planet) was in Visakha nakshatra (physical location) and that it was tormenting Rohini."<<<< << Where did Vyaasa Jee say he was implying the "physical planet" ? Vyaasa jee has mentioned countless of times that grahas are deities, and everyone knows deities can be perceived only when they want to make themselves visible. How physical astronomy can prove that a Shani in Vishakha can "torment" Rohini ? His second charge is that he wanted me to demonstrate my computational ability. I had clearly said that I am not Ramanujam (or Shakuntala Devi), and my computational abilities are due to mastery of a lot of mathematical tables since early boyhood, like logarithmic and antilog tables. I had mentioned the name and departments of a university where my computational ability was checked. Instead of asking those professors, Mr Sunil Bhattacharya says "you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic." Why should I start touring the globe like Shakuntala Devi, stopping my research works ? Mr Sunil Bhattacharya is certainly not sincere and is after character assassination. If he really doubts me, he can come to my town ( I will bear his expenses in my town, but not travelling expenses) and test me. I believe he will decline this offer and find new excuses to malign me. His next point is >>>>"your claim that one has to be a lifeong Brahmachari to get spiritual knowledge is all bullshit. In the ancient times all the sages like Vasishtha were married. The ancient Kumaras and only a few others were balabrahmachari. "<<<< He does not know the difference between a Brahmachaari and a Baala-brahmachaari, although he uses both terms. Ancient sages were married and were Brahmachaaris at the same time. But married Brahmachaaris are not Baala-Brahmachaaris . Mr Sunil Bhattacharya quotes Mahabharata every now and then , but only in a distorted manner in order to prove his wrong points. In Mahabharata, when Ashwatthaamaa said he does not know how to retract a Brahmaastra, Lord Krishna said Ashwatthaamaa could not do so because he was not a Brahmachaari, while Arjuna could retract it because Arjuna was a Brahmachaari. Ashwatthaamaa was a celibate brahmin of a high lineage, and there is no episode which can prove his fall from Brahmachaarya, excepting a brief reference to presence of dancers in his tent at Kuruksetra during war. Arjuna was known to have more than one wife and more than one offspring, but rejected Urvashi's offer because in Urvashi's offer there Kaama was merely a means of carnal pleasure which Arjuna had to reject, while Kaama according to Dharma, ie intended for saving the lineage, is Lord Himself as told in Gita. Arjuna was Gudaakesha, one who has attained Yoganidra by conquering normal sleep. He was a real tapasvi and a real sadhu. Hence he was a Brahmachaari. If Lord Krishna and Vyaasa Jee say so, why should I accept Mr Sunils' wrong definition of brahmacharya as a mere state of remaining unmarried. A single instance of seminal ejaculation destroys brahmacharya. That is why bad company and taamasika foods and drinks are forbidden for saatvika persons. Worls Health Organization was not founded for upholding brahmacharya and is free to eulogize a few tolas of wine. But a single drop of wine is worse than cobra venom for a real brahmachaari. Many doctors prescribe wine , meat, fish, eggs, but forget that Homo Sapiens was evolved out of a non-carnivorous family and unnatural food habits are giving rise to a lot of new diseases. I did not join forums to propagate brahmacharya, and Sunil ji is free to follow his ideas, but he should not distort ancient terms to suit his personal habits. His next point is that I was falsely complaining of being abused by him. He never used obscene words for me or for anyone. But as far as I know, I am the only person who became a target of his false and often abusive (not obscene) remarks. Even his present mail contains words like "dirty tactics" , "you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic" , "bullshit" , 'unprovable tall claims", "left ignominiously" which cannot be said to be conducive for a healthy discussion. His most provocative and abusive words are his deliberately false statements : (1)that Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only (actually, Chandrahariji stopped correspondence when he leant that my works were recognized by some leading scientific institutions, and then Mr Sreenadh and Mr Sunil Bhattacharya were hired by Chandrahariji to spread rumours that I never delivered anything at Indian Institute of Science ( cf. http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc ). Mr Sunil Bhattacharya even poked fun at my scientific paper which was accepted by CAOS, IISc. I asked these fellows to contact CAOS, IISc whether I was a liar or not, but they had an agenda to malign me. He falsely says "in the AIA group Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only because of your unproven and unprovable tall claims." These "strong words" were fit for a libel suit , and Chandrahariji used such words even in his last mails concerning me, not only in his initial mail. I am pained to note that in spite of my tolerance of Chandrahariji' s abuses, he and a handful of his followers never thought that I am a tolerant person, and intesified their offensive against me, denying any chance of free and fair discussion. When I recognized that Chandrahariji is a dishonest person and wants to literally crush me just because I know the practical methods of Suryasiddhantic computations which he wrongly interprets and falsely projects himself as an expert of Suryasiddhanta, I started refuting him, and challenged him for an intellectual debate, after which he left the field and his followers started abusing me, some of them even sent me obscene messages. Mr Sunil Bhattacharya falsely says : "In your every mail you used bring up what Chandrahariji wrote in the beginning to you." Chandrahariji abused me till his last mail, and in every reply I requested him to calm down and discuss, but in vain. Mr Sreenadh and Mr Bhaskar once tried to request Chandrahariji to discuss the matter calmly instead of abusing. But they failed. When I asked Chandrahariji for a shaastraartha, his followers were mad with anger and started abusing me. Mr Sunil Bhattacharya falsely says : "Sreenadhji, the owners and the moderators were very tolerant towards you." Sreenadhji was really good in the beginning, but when Chandrahariji brought the issue to a point of no return, I started challenging his ideas and invited him for a shaastraartha, Chandrahariji went into hibernation and Sreenadhji launched a venomous attack upon me, in AIA, in private emails, and in Allahabad Conference where I was instrumental in allowing him a chance to speak ( there too he abused and left the spot, without hearing the answers). Mr Sunil Bhattacharya deliberately forgets these facts and is misreporting here just to create a hostile environment against me. Had he behaved like a gentleman and refrained from impolite words, why I should have denied him the access to my Hindi book, whose English summary still can be read at three websites, one is Australian, another is Wikipedia (history tab), and the third is mine . I removed my book from the jyotirvidya site because the revised version could not be uploaded there due to size and had to be uploaded on another site. A lot of people in the world today are under a hallucination that material world is everything and ancient sages had no knowledge which modern science has not discovered. Their refusal to discuss and test springs from this materialist belief. Among these materialists, only those may be able to fairly judge the truth about astrology who keep away from wine, women and selling of astrology. I have not set these rules, these are ancient guidelines which moderners want to deny. I was glad when Mr Sunil Bhattacharya said that he wants to get rid of me. Why he has again decidedd to waste my and others' time must have some cause. That cause is a desire to crush the traditional astrology as based on Suryasiddhanta. Although all internet users are users of softwares based on physical astronomy, the wish to kill Suryasiddhantic astrology is a wishful thinking, majority of Indians stil use and will continue to use panchangas and kundalis based on crude or refined tables originally derived from Suryasiddhanta. The refusal to test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta is wrongly projected as "scientific" spirit by these enthusiasts. Scientific method does not reject a thing before testing it. I am abstaining from using bad words about Mr Sunil Bhattacharya. I left AIA because my time was wasted over refutals of false charges and abuses by these persons, who are now after me in other forums. If I am a bad guy, why he does not forget me ? Has he no noble task at hand ? I have no cure for prejudice. Some people suppose anyone finding something useful in ancient texts must be an obscurantist and must be silenced by force, or by means of abuses. -VJ ============ ==== ============ ==== , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Vinayji, > > 1) > You say that the location of the physical planets are different from the actual locations of the grahas but Vedavyasa does not agree with you. Will you say that Vedavyasa did not have spiritual knowledge which you claim to possess? Vedavyasa said that at the time of the Mahabharata war the Saturn (physical planet) was in Visakha nakshatra (physical location) and that it was tormenting Rohini. > > 2) > You said that Suniljee wants you to demonstrate your computing power like a madaari. Far from it I wanted to you to demonstarte you computing abilities like Shakuntal devi did and nobody has any doubt on her computing ability. Do you want to say Shakuntala Devi is a madaari(ni)? Why do you interpret things in the wrong way more usually than otherwuse? Or is it that you cannot prove it and want a face-saving exit from the topic > > 3) As regards Tantra you misinformed the AIA group by saying that Tantra is un-Vedic and I simply corrected it and told you that the Kularnava tantra traces its origin to Veda. Then you said that in Tantra one has to get drunk heavily. I only corrected it by saying that Tantra recommends that one should take the substitutes. Then there is also the alternative procedure of Alipaan, which a symbolical drinking of a drop. However in case of one, who is used to drinking wines, only two-Tolas (ie. one ounce of wine, which is less than the safe limit of wine permitted by the World Health Organisation) was allowed. Now please do not pose the question as to whether the Tantric masters consulted WHO before fixing the two Tolas. You have already made enough of cheap fun of the Two Tolas due to your ignorance of the Tantric norms. > > 4) Vinayji please speak out only what is true. Which foul word did I use? Please have the guts to tell the forum. Please leave your dirty tactics of false accusations. Also your claim that one has to be a lifeong Brahmachari to get spiritual knowledge is all bullshit. In the ancient times all the sages like Vasishtha were married. The ancient Kumaras and only a few others were balabrahmachari. From the biographical details that we have of Adi Sankaracharya he told his mother that his longevity (ayu) was less and that he would die unless he became a sanyashi. I do not think Adi Sankaracharya wanted to fool his mother. Moreove of the sankara mathas the Sankaracharyas of the Govardhana Math were grihashthis in their purvashrama. > > 5) You never told that your book on Suryasiddhanta was on the Internet website but you pretended to get annoyed with me and you said that you are going to delete that from your website so that I don't get to see it. Please do not play such dirty tricks. If you want to delete it you can very well do it as it is your prerogative. Now I am convinced that a book coming from a person of such attitude may not be worth reading. > > 6) > I agree that in the AIA group Chandrahariji did use strong words in the beginning only because of your unproven and unprovable tall claims. I had, at one time, a lot of correspondence with Chandrahariji and we respected each other even though we did not agree in several things. All other people including Sreenadhji in the AIA group were very polite towards you. They never used a single strong word against you. In fact I also supported you in the beginning. But your much- vaunted scholarship remained only in your assertions and claims. In your every mail you used bring up what Chandrahariji wrote in the beginning to you and you threatened that you will quit that group and to keep your word you had to quit. Sreenadhji, the owners and the moderators were very tolerant towards you and I do not think that you were ousted from the group but yourself made your position very precarious there and you left ignominiously. > > -SKB > > > --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> > > Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 9:37 PM > > > > > > > Bhaskar Jee, > > You will never know what secrets I possess due to your foul language. > > You say : "I could see that you were not being able to manage strong solid arguments or proofs of what you claimed in front of Marg, which weakness she understood and played with you, till you left back doors." > > Margie is adamant on discussing ONLY the physical proofs of astronomical observation in ancient India, brcause she knows that ancient indian astrology was not based on physical observation but on revelations. She has an agenda, and does not want to discuss what India really can offer. She has a negative attitude which no one can change. She and you do not know what I wanted to offer, because I never explained what I have. My unwillingness to explain is taken by you to be my inability. You say : "Unfortunately you have been able to prove nothing of your tall claims on a single forum." AIA was the only forum where I had agreed to provode proofs and discuss in detail, but a handful of cronies hired by Sreenadh never stopped abusing me and never allowed any free and fair discussion. In no other forum I started such a discussion. I never wanted to prove anything to you, because you were never interested in anything about my methods and often wanted to know > everything in a paragraph which was impossible. You are a professional astrologer and I am a software developer plus a researcher. We are poles apart. I avoid clients. I am not you competitor because I do not earn money from astrology. I never wanted to become a me,ber of any forum. It was Sreenadh who requested me to join, and later singled me out for abusive bahaviour without any provocation. Later, some other forums invited me and asked me to join their and other forums. Sohams is the only forum which had not invited me. But I joined Sohams because matters pertaining to me were raised there by others. > > I know forums are not a right place for me, because all these forums are populated by users of softwares made along modern astronomy which I have found to be far inferior ASTROLOGICALLY in comparison to Suryasiddhantic software. Initially I also used and made softwares based on modern astronomy. I have no hatred for modern scient, I am a recognized scientist myself. it is the misapplication of physical science in a metaphysical discipline like astrology which I oppose. But if someone does not want to test Suryasiddhantic software, it is not going to harm me in the least, because I do not sell any software. > > You say : "I still do not understand what secrets are you trying to give us, except that by using your software we will become very good astrologers ? Otherwise we are not so ? This is really boasting and impudence... " > > I am a software developer who used principles different from those used by all other software developers. You are passing judgment on my work without testing my work. If you are not interested in testing my software, I will never ask you to test it. But , then, why are you wasting my and you time ? Forget me and my works if you find it not worth testing and reading. > > You are mistaken in saying that I am trying to give some secrets to you. I never tried. Secrets are given to worthy persons. The first criterion of worth is Curiosity (jijnaasaa). You have no jijnaasaa about my method. why should I waste my time over you ?? > > I clearly mentioned my methods with practical examples in a non- forum last year. Those who read my explanations are using my software and reporting it to be performing wonderfully. Some persons fail to install it. But only two persons have taken an oath to waste my time over futile discussions leading nowhere : you and Mr Sunil Bhattacharya. These two persons deliberately diverted my topic in AIA on Tantric Astrology to wine and women, knowing full well that a lifelong brahmachaari like me will not like to participate in such a discussion. Winw and women have no place in Tantric Astrology. Ancient tantric texts are the original sources of 84 chakras, some of whom are well known, like panch-shalaakaa and sapta-shalaakaa chakras, sapta-naadi chakra, sarvatobhadra chakra, koorma chakra, etc. A good topic was destroyed. Recently, Mr Sunil Bhattacharya wasted a lot of my time and then started using foul words. you are also adamant on wasting my and your > time. Have you no business ? If I am a bad guy, either forget me or ask the moderators to ban me. Do not send useless and uncivil posts. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> > > Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:02:04 AM > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> > > Dear Vinay jee, > > Ha Ha. That was a good one. > > See now you dont understand, The other people who are against indian culture and Indian vedic astrology, would now take advantage after seeing this differences between us, which i did not want. > > Being inebriated, is not my forte unfortunately. > > I mentoned about your being crushed only because I could see that you were not being able to manage strong solid arguments or proofs of what you claimed in front of Marg, which weakness she understood and played with you, till you left back doors. > > See how you have called me ignorant, the Moderator here as ignorant, but i still feel that You have some knowledge, and I also feel that Marg has got good knowledge and the Moderator here is the wisest person whom i have ever encountered with. He will not enter the thread unless it leads to someone abusing the other one. Now do you call these statements as under the influence of liquor , or the ones made by Your goodeself ( ??). > > The mail you have just presented, I have received the likes of same, in thousands on various groups, which still does not make me Pompous, impudent or proud, because I know my shortcomings in astrology, which these people who send me praise mails do not. I always have my feet planted firmly on the ground. > > Unfortunately you have been able to prove nothing of your tall claims on a single forum, since last 6 months of lingering on these, and you tried to impress a smart member Marg here and once again showed the torn spots in your claims which amount to nought. > > I still do not understand what secrets are you trying to give us, except that by using your software we will become very good astrologers ? Otherwise we are not so ? This is really boasting and impudence, and not what I have mentioned which speaks of confidence in my knowledge acquired through years of study and nights spent in reading and analysing. > > I seriously think that you need some rest and time to study actually what you are trying to claim. because neither have you proved yourself to me, neither to marg, and neither to any member of the various groups you have entered and been showed the door, I am sorry to say. > > Now lets stop discussing when you have nothing in your kitty, otherwise the Moderator here will throw me even out, because of you. > > regards/Bhaskar. Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.