Greeks vs Indians HOLY JEUS!

April 6, 2009

Dear Vinay ji,

This is a much appreciated stance from you, of opening a new thread, but

if it deals just with astronomy and mathematics, then I will not be able

to understand the same. I am basically a astrologer who reads only that

stuff which will better the pedictive abilities and keeps away from too

much theory, mathematics and the Esoteric. Any discussion which brings

me near the truth of a incident in a natives chart is wort of interest

to me . What will happen ? When it will happen ? And how it will happen

?

Yes You are right about Neelamji, Sreenadhji ,Sunilji and even yourself.

We are all good people and must remain so and keep away from any sort of

acrimony in our exchanges.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Bhaskar ji,

> I requested Sunilji again and again not to drag me into history or

astronomy, not because I was not interested in history or astronomy, but

because it is an astrological forum where I wanted to discuss only

simple astrological topics. But he would not relent. Let this thread be

reserved for these useless charges and counter-charges, and let us begin

a new thread for discussing astrological problems, without any personal

attacks or diversions.

> I am starting that new thread with a title : " Some Cardinal Problems

of Astrology " . I request you to join, but I also request you to see that

this topic is not destroyed as so many earlier attempts were destoyed

with personal attacks. I have no acrimony against you, Sunilji,

Neelamji, Sreenadhji etc, because I know they are all misunderstanding

me. All of them want good astrology ; I also want the same. Where is the

difference ? The difference lies in an unwillingness to listen. It can

be solved by shutting one's ears. They can refuse to listen to me. Why

quarrel with me ? If someone imagines he can mute my voice he is utterly

mistaken. I have just begun on the internet. I have not opened all my

cards, which will become yours the moment you try to understaqnd and use

my cards, because my cards are not mine. I discovered nothing new.

> Good Wishes,

> -VJ

>

> ________________________________

> Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish

>

> Monday, April 6, 2009 5:04:53 PM

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Dear Vinay ji,

>

> Well now you have retracted your statements made against Astrologers,

> Poojaris and chikitsaks.

>

> If You have not said so then I take my words back.

>

> Nobody is after your blood Mr.Vinay. and nobody has formed any team,

and

> nobody is against you. On the contrary those whom you consider as a

> team, we also have a lots of differences of opinions between each

other,

> but we let those rest after 1-2 mails, do not make it a issue, do not

> elongate it, and respect each other by moving to some new thread etc.

> None of us are perfect so we do not want to strain relations but more

> interested in mantaining the same.

>

> I have read the Manusmriti when I was a child and will read it again

if

> anyone wishes me to challenge this stand of the astrologers, Pundits

and

> the chikitsakas being called as " Chandalas " is mentioned there in.

>

> You may be a good man, a Brahmachari, a Sanyasin, and much more, and

you

> may become more greater by giving all a free software which helps them

> become better astrologers for whom the software works. I have no

> argument here.

>

> But why should we only use your software and then realise that you

have

> come up with some great matter of astrological importance which never

> was , or never will be realised by anyone again. Why cant you explain

in

> simple words what you have discovered and how it helps in predictive

> astrology.

>

> What changes are there in your software which others do not have ? Is

it

> just your taking particular number of days as one year and basing the

> Vimsottari calculations based on that ? Or is there more than this ?

> What is it ?

>

> Why cant you explain the above instead of endless talks on subjects

and

> people which does not matter to astrology rather disturbs the moods

and

> spoils the relations and calls for more agitated responses ?

>

> regards,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

> .

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@

....>

> wrote:

> >

> > TO ALL :

> >

> > An astrological issue of great importance is being declared to be

> > non-astrological.

> >

> > I am amused to find the same team here united against me without any

> > reason and with abuses, which fruatrated my attempts to discuss

> anything

> > worthwhile in AIA. I am surprised at their teamspirit and want to

> point

> > out the underlying causes which is the cementing force uniting them,

> and

> > what harm they are doing to astrology.

> >

> > First of all, I will like to answer Bhaskarji's charge that I am

> abusing

> > all astrologers as chaandaalas without providing any refernce to

> > Manusmriti and MBh. In answer, I am quoting recent mail of Sunilji

in

> > this thread " Kaulji said that the astrologers are Chandalas without

> > knowing that any dishonest person in any profession is a Chandala.

He

> > did not accept that astrology was known in the ancient times in

India

> > though he himself said that Manu mentioned that astrologers are not

to

> > be invited to participate in Devakarya and Pitrikarya and he was

> > withholding the fact the physicians and the temple priest are also

not

> > to be invited for ...... "

> >

> > It was Kaulji who said all astrologers are chaandaalas according to

> > Manusmriti. Sunilji corerected him by adding that according to Manu

> not

> > only all astrologers but all physicians and all temple priests are

> also

> > chaandaalas. I countered this misinterpretation of Manusmriti by

> > Sunilji, and said that only those astrologers, physicians and

priests

> > were declared to be chaandaalas who made a living out of these

> > professions. This is literal meaning. In my view, astrologers and

> others

> > need money to live in this world and therefore have a right to

accept

> > dakshinaa. I know a large number of pandits who adhere to this

> principle

> > and accept dakshinaa but do not ask for fees. I could have accepted

> > dakshinaas had I not been provided with alternative source for

> > livlihood. Hence, the real sense of manusmriti must have been that

> only

> > thugs are chaandaalas who pose as astrologers & c but are actually

> after

> > the pockets of their clients. It is strange that Bhaskarji is

> forgiving

> > Sunulji who made false and derogatory remarks against all

astrologers

> > & c, and is inciting all members here on false pretexts. I merely

> > corrected Sunilji who was making a misinterpretation. Why Bhaskarji

> does

> > not ask Sunilji to provide the verse, which will make it clear who

is

> > lying about Manusmriti and who is leveling false charge on me ?

> Instead,

> > Bhaskarji call me a hypocrite and concludes that I have " nothing to

> > offer " .

> >

> > Neelamji joined the fray against me, as she did in AIA, concluding

> that

> > my mails have " any nugget of worth " , repeating Bhaskarji's charge

that

> I

> > am good for nothing, and sympathising with Bhaskarji's false charges

> > against me that I call all astrologers as chaandaalas ( " It is

painful

> to

> > see a scholar like Vinay ji use such terminology which has no basis

in

> > any Shastra " ). I am being charged of what was actually said by

> Sunilji,

> > whom Neelamji hails as a good umpire to judge me (earlier she had

> hailed

> > Chandrahariji who could pass a verdict on me). Now, Sreenadhji has

> also

> > joined in this fray ( cf.

> > http://dir.groups. / group/JyotishGro up/message/ 22847 :

" Does

> > those parasites in search of a free meal will feed the family of the

> > astrologer or what?! " . Although I adhere to strict rules of sanyasa,

I

> > need not beg for free meals because I have permanent source of

income.

> > But I am a parasite, because I distribute my works freely !! These

> same

> > people have abused all astrologers who are now falsely blaming me

for

> > doing so, I only corrected the reference. These people do not know

how

> > to quote, how to read and how to behave in a forum.

> >

> > Neelam Gupta is a liar because she charges me of offering " a second

> line

> > of predictive astrology " . I had made it clear in AIA and in my

website

> > that I strictly adhere to Parashara's predictive astrology (BPHS

& c).

> > Why she is leveling a false charge on me ? These persons want to ban

> > ( " shun " as bhaskarji said) a person like me who is advocating the

> rules

> > of sages in the field of Vedic Astrrology. Neelam Gupta should ask

> > Sunilji to stop diverting the discussion away from astrology.

Instead,

> > she is accusing me of this diversion. I never liked any discussion

on

> > history, because I am basically a software developer and lengthy

> > discussion not related to current problems of practical astrology

> > hampers my work. But those very persons are charging me of diversion

> who

> > are themselves guilty of diverting the topic on astrology to history

> or

> > to wine and even to sex (I have in store previous mails of these

> > fellows, some of which contained nothing but obscene abuses to my

> mother

> > and sister). In AIA, I had also quoted a message from PVR

Narasimhaji,

> > supported by Sanjay Rath ji, which said that the team of

Chandrahariji

> > is too dogmatic to listen to others. This same team is after my

flesh

> > and blood now.

> >

> > Lastly, I must answer the useless message of Sunilji who is hellbent

> on

> > diverting astrological discussions to other things merely with a

view

> to

> > malign me and get me banned.He wants a discussion on my technical

> paper

> > on weather forecasting and teleconnections in an astrological forum.

> How

> > many members here know the meaning of " teleconnections " in weather

> > science ? I am sorry to note that Sunilji regards a difference of

1.7

> > years as merely " a fraction of a year " !! He rejects the very

existence

> > of 61-year ctcle because he fails to understand a scientific paper.

> His

> > first charge is I had " not given any substantive data " . I worked on

> > already existing data of IITM ,Pune which I cited in reference-10

> which

> > were originally for 1871-1978 but are constantly being updated (I

also

> > used 1813-2007 dataset from IITM, but it was only for ISMR and not

for

> > whole years, hence I could not use it properly). Sunilji can get

these

> > datasest from IITM (Pune) and check for himself whether I worked

> without

> > authentic data or not. Why should I fill up my paper with data well

> > known to weather scientists ? I was asked my referees to remove well

> > known items in order to present only new things. I lucidly explained

> in

> > my paper how I used and analyzed that dataset.

> >

> > His second charge is that I gave no repeat cycles and gave no dates

of

> > any particular year in my paper. Either his eyesight is defective or

> his

> > intentions are far from sincere. I gave comparison of two cycles in

> six

> > figures, of three cycles in one figure and of four cycles in one

> figure

> > ( Fig-1,2,3,4, 6,7,9) . Annual data of only 136 years are availabe

in

> the

> > case of India, which could facilitate comparision of only two whole

> > cycles of 61 years, and partial comparison of three cycles

(1813-2007

> > dataset can give more span but less reliability due lack of whole

> year's

> > data). Surprisingly, Sunilji asks me to work on " at least two or

three

> > centuries " ; he does not even know that rainfall data for India does

> not

> > exist for so long periods. Clearly, he is a novice in this field,

but

> > Neelamji thanks him for " volunteering to be the good umpire " ! The

> > referees of IISc or experts of NASA were unfit, and a chemist like

> > Sunilji should judge my work ! Why he does not inform the referees

of

> > CAOS, IISc that they erred in selecting my paper ?

> >

> > Sunilji falsely says that my paper does not give years clearly. My

> paper

> > (

> >

> http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+

to+Rain+Forecast ing

> > ) says : " 1957 AD is numbered 87 (= 1957 - 1870 ) and will be found

in

> > the second series in blue . When the second curve was superimposed

> upon

> > the first one, shape of both waveforms coincided in a majority of

> cases

> > when the gap between both series was chosen to be 61 years. Waveform

> of

> > 1891-1923 ( year nos. 21-53 ) had an similarity in shape with that

of

> > 1952-1984 ( year numbers 82-114) in 25 out of 33 years , only 8

years

> > were out of phase. " Even a cursory glance at Fig-2 in my paper will

> > convince any unbiased onlooker that annual rainfall waveform

replicate

> > the waveform of 61-years away for 50% of the time, even if we change

> 61

> > to 60 or to 62, this replication will cease. Why Sunilji

deliberately

> > falsifies an important discovery is not difficult to guess. He has a

> > prejuduce for 60-year Jovian cycle, and cannot accept any new fact

> > against his prejudice. The Jovian cycle is quite different from the

> > solar cycle of 61 years. Due to his prejudices, Sunilji is

> deliberately

> > falsifying data and facts. He says about me " He does not even know

how

> > to write a scientific paper properly and to report authentically. "

> > Unfortunately, it is Sunilji whio does not even know how to read a

> > scientific paper properly and to report honestly.

> >

> > As for the date of Kalidasa, I do not know his arguments for his

> dating

> > of Kalidasa in 8th century BC. I have no access to his full paper, I

> got

> > a passage quoted in another person's work. Hence, I neither accept

nor

> > refute his dating. But my knowledge of Sunilji's " scientific " temper

> > leads me to suspect his dating has no substantiation. He had said

that

> > Suryasiddhanta had one hundred thousand verses. He makes wild

> statements

> > and does not cite sources. I am repeating my earlier statement that

> the

> > true date of Kalidasa can be judged only by procuring some old

prints

> of

> > Ritusamhara which contained a verse at the end stating the date and

> > tithi, but era was not stated ; later publishers omitted this verse

> > because they thought a text of literature should not contain a

> > mathematical verse about dating written in archaic astrological

> > language. I have a photocopy of that page, the worn out book is in

the

> > possession of an elderly person. Unfortunately, Sunilji pokes fun at

> all

> > my statements without any reason. It is asign of his bizarre

> > " scientific " attitude !

> >

> > He is misguided by his ignorance in saying " Vinayji is wrong when he

> > says that INSA (India National Science Academy) papers are not

> > peer-reviewed. " I never said Chandrahariji' s papers were not

published

> > in peer-reviewed journals, I said that Chandrahariji published his

> wrong

> > interprewtations of Suryasiddhanta in journals whose panel included

> > peers of other disciplines, not a singlr expert of Suryasiddhanta

was

> > there. I can prove this statement in a court of law, as I have

already

> > done. There is no other cure for liars who pose as experts of texts

> > which they do not understand. Neelamji is a light minded person who

> > thinks the fundamental texts of Indian astrology should not be

> discussed

> > and monsoon-cycles have nothiong to do with astrology. If she has no

> > interest in serious issues, she can keep away from these topics and

> > forget me. But no, the friends of Chandrahariji have a mission :

they

> > want to modify the meaning of Suryasiddhanta which is not possible

as

> > long as I am here. Hence, I must be hanged or fired.

> >

> > Friends, wait for some time. I am going to dispel all this fog

created

> > by a small team (from AIA), for which I need some time, for

> translating

> > my works into English. Ancient Indian mundane astrology was a great

> > science, which I want to bring to fore ; it will help in individual

> > horoscopy as well. I have discovered nothing new. What Neelamji

wants

> to

> > ban is not " my " method, my only crime is that I made a free software

> out

> > of this ancient method, which forms the bedrock of Jyotishaachaarya

> > curriculum in all Sanskrit universities. Some supposedly

" scientific "

> > persons think all ancient things must be discarded, hence this hue

and

> > cry against me without even testing my free software !! Let them

> forget

> > me and my software, why waste so much of time over me ?

> >

> > -VJ

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

> > , neelam gupta neelamgupta07@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear RR ji, Sunil ji, Vinay ji and all,

> > >

> > > Welcome to this fray RR ji! And thanks for bringing in some hope

by

> > > volunteering to be the good umpire, for a good cause. Can I

request

> > you all

> > > to put an end to this series which has outlived its value, if it

> ever

> > had

> > > any. Enough matches have been played in public view at various

> venues

> > (read

> > > fora) without any conclusive results. Most of the players who

joined

> > > initially have been smart enough to withdraw, not willing to

fritter

> > away

> > > their precious time and energy.

> > >

> > > Having witnessed this futile exchange (amusingly, painstakingly

and

> > > agonizingly and devastatinglyâ€¦ in that order), for quite a

few

> > months now, I

> > > do not foresee a peaceful agreement here. With due regards to

Vinay

> > Jha ji's

> > > knowledge and status, we really do not have the time and

inclination

> > to go

> > > through the incoherent verbosity of the long-winded messages, with

a

> > > diminutive hope of stumbling upon any nugget of worth.

> > >

> > > We cannot master everything in this short life. With one mainstay

> > > profession, a second line of predictive astrology is more than

what

> I

> > (and

> > > some others like me) can handle with some level of justification.

> > Moreover,

> > > this is a Jyotish group, and technically we may perhaps discuss

our

> > core

> > > subject only and not stray into the undesired and unrequited

realms

> of

> > > history and astronomy.

> > >

> > > Hope I am not making an unfair request! Let us get on with our

core

> > > interest.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Neelam

> > >

April 6, 2009

Dear Vinay Jha ji,

I did not anticipate this spate of negativity in response to my attempt at

peace-making. Most of my message has been misinterpreted by you. I had

written a very direct and straight mail in simple English. Anybody who cares

to read my message will be able to offer you the correct meaning. However,

here are some important points clarified:

First and foremost, it was RR ji, I was referring to as an umpire and not

Sunil ji. You may read the message again and see for yourself.

The message was my personal feeling only and I really do not see what

‘nugget of worth’ is there in those verbal discords! Hope I am free to

express what I feel for once, you’ve been doing it for months.

About the Chandala controversy, if you do not hold these views, then we rest

the case. I have no patience to go through all the messages. If I know Sunil

ji from his writings, he was taking a cue from one of your messages and

giving his views on the same. The word Chandala might've been an extended

synonym.

//Neelam Gupta is a liar because she charges me of offering " a second line

of predictive astrology " .//

This is most ridiculous, as anyone can read my mail and see that *I was

talking about myself* and not you. Here’s what I said:

//We cannot master everything in this short life. With one mainstay

profession, a second line of predictive astrology is more than what I (and

some others like me) can handle with some level of justification.//

Where do you fit yourself in the sentence? In AIA also there was a similar

talk about a ‘chicken’.

I do not wish to elaborate on the other points. I am sorry for causing

discomfort to you.

Regards

Neelam

April 6, 2009

Friends,

Requesting you to close this topic as it has reached its peak or should we call

it nadir?

take care,

raj

April 6, 2009

Dear Bhaskarji and Neelamji,You can now see how Vinayji is lying. My mails are there to show what I said. I do not know if his past Marxist background has anything to do with this anti-astrology attitude. His unsubstantiated (hence false) claims that he alone understands the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta because of his tapasya is only meant to make people lose their faith in the Suryasiddhanta. He is in the same league as Kaulji. He cannot give you any reference from Manu Smriti as Manu never said that astrologers are chandalas. What Manu said was that the astrologers, physicians , temple priests and people of several other professions are barred from being invited to Devakarya and Pitrukarya. Only non-professionals like poor intellectuals were to be invited and the given food and dakshina. . Vinayji claimed that in Mahabharata also the

astrologers are called Chandala. It is another lie and he cannot give any verse to you. I think Chandrahariji was right in what all he said about him.Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned the months in his paper on monsoon cycles and that is fallacious. For example January 1901 to December 1960 may appear to be 59 years years but it is actually near 60 years than 59. Similarly December 1901 to January 1962 may appear to be 61 years but actually it is more near 60 years. He just wanted to hoodwink the audience. i am sure the audience wasamused but did not bother to give any importance to what he said. Monsoon is what decides the crop and he is denying the role of the return of Jupiter, the Sun amd the Moon at the end of 60 years to the same position convinces me that he does not understand the role of the grahas and so he does not really understand astrology at all. Even the Saturn

completes two cycles in 60 years and so it is also in the same position in 60 years. He also admitted that old data are not available to give the results for several cycles yet he does not hesitate to claim exactly 61 year cycle (ie 61 X 12 = 732 months cycle) and he has not mentioned any variance of even a month in that. What an unscientific approach? Please be careful of correspondence with him as he does not hesitate to twist matters if that suits him.Regards,Sunil K.Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 4/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote:vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 4:14 AM

TO ALL :

An astrological issue of great importance is being declared to be

non-astrological.

I am amused to find the same team here united against me without any

reason and with abuses, which fruatrated my attempts to discuss anything

worthwhile in AIA. I am surprised at their teamspirit and want to point

out the underlying causes which is the cementing force uniting them, and

what harm they are doing to astrology.

First of all, I will like to answer Bhaskarji's charge that I am abusing

all astrologers as chaandaalas without providing any refernce to

Manusmriti and MBh. In answer, I am quoting recent mail of Sunilji in

this thread "Kaulji said that the astrologers are Chandalas without

knowing that any dishonest person in any profession is a Chandala. He

did not accept that astrology was known in the ancient times in India

though he himself said that Manu mentioned that astrologers are not to

be invited to participate in Devakarya and Pitrikarya and he was

withholding the fact the physicians and the temple priest are also not

to be invited for ......"

It was Kaulji who said all astrologers are chaandaalas according to

Manusmriti. Sunilji corerected him by adding that according to Manu not

only all astrologers but all physicians and all temple priests are also

chaandaalas. I countered this misinterpretation of Manusmriti by

Sunilji, and said that only those astrologers, physicians and priests

were declared to be chaandaalas who made a living out of these

professions. This is literal meaning. In my view, astrologers and others

need money to live in this world and therefore have a right to accept

dakshinaa. I know a large number of pandits who adhere to this principle

and accept dakshinaa but do not ask for fees. I could have accepted

dakshinaas had I not been provided with alternative source for

livlihood. Hence, the real sense of manusmriti must have been that only

thugs are chaandaalas who pose as astrologers & c but are actually after

the pockets of their clients. It is strange that Bhaskarji is forgiving

Sunulji who made false and derogatory remarks against all astrologers

& c, and is inciting all members here on false pretexts. I merely

corrected Sunilji who was making a misinterpretation. Why Bhaskarji does

not ask Sunilji to provide the verse, which will make it clear who is

lying about Manusmriti and who is leveling false charge on me ? Instead,

Bhaskarji call me a hypocrite and concludes that I have "nothing to

offer".

Neelamji joined the fray against me, as she did in AIA, concluding that

my mails have "any nugget of worth", repeating Bhaskarji's charge that I

am good for nothing, and sympathising with Bhaskarji's false charges

against me that I call all astrologers as chaandaalas ("It is painful to

see a scholar like Vinay ji use such terminology which has no basis in

any Shastra"). I am being charged of what was actually said by Sunilji,

whom Neelamji hails as a good umpire to judge me (earlier she had hailed

Chandrahariji who could pass a verdict on me). Now, Sreenadhji has also

joined in this fray ( cf.

http://dir.groups. / group/JyotishGro up/message/ 22847 : "Does

those parasites in search of a free meal will feed the family of the

astrologer or what?!". Although I adhere to strict rules of sanyasa, I

need not beg for free meals because I have permanent source of income.

But I am a parasite, because I distribute my works freely !! These same

people have abused all astrologers who are now falsely blaming me for

doing so, I only corrected the reference. These people do not know how

to quote, how to read and how to behave in a forum.

Neelam Gupta is a liar because she charges me of offering "a second line

of predictive astrology". I had made it clear in AIA and in my website

that I strictly adhere to Parashara's predictive astrology (BPHS & c).

Why she is leveling a false charge on me ? These persons want to ban

("shun" as bhaskarji said) a person like me who is advocating the rules

of sages in the field of Vedic Astrrology. Neelam Gupta should ask

Sunilji to stop diverting the discussion away from astrology. Instead,

she is accusing me of this diversion. I never liked any discussion on

history, because I am basically a software developer and lengthy

discussion not related to current problems of practical astrology

hampers my work. But those very persons are charging me of diversion who

are themselves guilty of diverting the topic on astrology to history or

to wine and even to sex (I have in store previous mails of these

fellows, some of which contained nothing but obscene abuses to my mother

and sister). In AIA, I had also quoted a message from PVR Narasimhaji,

supported by Sanjay Rath ji, which said that the team of Chandrahariji

is too dogmatic to listen to others. This same team is after my flesh

and blood now.

Lastly, I must answer the useless message of Sunilji who is hellbent on

diverting astrological discussions to other things merely with a view to

malign me and get me banned.He wants a discussion on my technical paper

on weather forecasting and teleconnections in an astrological forum. How

many members here know the meaning of "teleconnections" in weather

science ? I am sorry to note that Sunilji regards a difference of 1.7

years as merely "a fraction of a year"!! He rejects the very existence

of 61-year ctcle because he fails to understand a scientific paper. His

first charge is I had "not given any substantive data". I worked on

already existing data of IITM ,Pune which I cited in reference-10 which

were originally for 1871-1978 but are constantly being updated (I also

used 1813-2007 dataset from IITM, but it was only for ISMR and not for

whole years, hence I could not use it properly). Sunilji can get these

datasest from IITM (Pune) and check for himself whether I worked without

authentic data or not. Why should I fill up my paper with data well

known to weather scientists ? I was asked my referees to remove well

known items in order to present only new things. I lucidly explained in

my paper how I used and analyzed that dataset.

His second charge is that I gave no repeat cycles and gave no dates of

any particular year in my paper. Either his eyesight is defective or his

intentions are far from sincere. I gave comparison of two cycles in six

figures, of three cycles in one figure and of four cycles in one figure

( Fig-1,2,3,4, 6,7,9) . Annual data of only 136 years are availabe in the

case of India, which could facilitate comparision of only two whole

cycles of 61 years, and partial comparison of three cycles (1813-2007

dataset can give more span but less reliability due lack of whole year's

data). Surprisingly, Sunilji asks me to work on "at least two or three

centuries" ; he does not even know that rainfall data for India does not

exist for so long periods. Clearly, he is a novice in this field, but

Neelamji thanks him for "volunteering to be the good umpire" ! The

referees of IISc or experts of NASA were unfit, and a chemist like

Sunilji should judge my work ! Why he does not inform the referees of

CAOS, IISc that they erred in selecting my paper ?

Sunilji falsely says that my paper does not give years clearly. My paper

(

http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+ to+Rain+Forecast ing

) says : "1957 AD is numbered 87 (= 1957 - 1870 ) and will be found in

the second series in blue . When the second curve was superimposed upon

the first one, shape of both waveforms coincided in a majority of cases

when the gap between both series was chosen to be 61 years. Waveform of

1891-1923 ( year nos. 21-53 ) had an similarity in shape with that of

1952-1984 ( year numbers 82-114) in 25 out of 33 years , only 8 years

were out of phase. " Even a cursory glance at Fig-2 in my paper will

convince any unbiased onlooker that annual rainfall waveform replicate

the waveform of 61-years away for 50% of the time, even if we change 61

to 60 or to 62, this replication will cease. Why Sunilji deliberately

falsifies an important discovery is not difficult to guess. He has a

prejuduce for 60-year Jovian cycle, and cannot accept any new fact

against his prejudice. The Jovian cycle is quite different from the

solar cycle of 61 years. Due to his prejudices, Sunilji is deliberately

falsifying data and facts. He says about me "He does not even know how

to write a scientific paper properly and to report authentically. "

Unfortunately, it is Sunilji whio does not even know how to read a

scientific paper properly and to report honestly.

As for the date of Kalidasa, I do not know his arguments for his dating

of Kalidasa in 8th century BC. I have no access to his full paper, I got

a passage quoted in another person's work. Hence, I neither accept nor

refute his dating. But my knowledge of Sunilji's "scientific" temper

leads me to suspect his dating has no substantiation. He had said that

Suryasiddhanta had one hundred thousand verses. He makes wild statements

and does not cite sources. I am repeating my earlier statement that the

true date of Kalidasa can be judged only by procuring some old prints of

Ritusamhara which contained a verse at the end stating the date and

tithi, but era was not stated ; later publishers omitted this verse

because they thought a text of literature should not contain a

mathematical verse about dating written in archaic astrological

language. I have a photocopy of that page, the worn out book is in the

possession of an elderly person. Unfortunately, Sunilji pokes fun at all

my statements without any reason. It is asign of his bizarre

"scientific" attitude !

He is misguided by his ignorance in saying "Vinayji is wrong when he

says that INSA (India National Science Academy) papers are not

peer-reviewed. " I never said Chandrahariji' s papers were not published

in peer-reviewed journals, I said that Chandrahariji published his wrong

interprewtations of Suryasiddhanta in journals whose panel included

peers of other disciplines, not a singlr expert of Suryasiddhanta was

there. I can prove this statement in a court of law, as I have already

done. There is no other cure for liars who pose as experts of texts

which they do not understand. Neelamji is a light minded person who

thinks the fundamental texts of Indian astrology should not be discussed

and monsoon-cycles have nothiong to do with astrology. If she has no

interest in serious issues, she can keep away from these topics and

forget me. But no, the friends of Chandrahariji have a mission : they

want to modify the meaning of Suryasiddhanta which is not possible as

long as I am here. Hence, I must be hanged or fired.

Friends, wait for some time. I am going to dispel all this fog created

by a small team (from AIA), for which I need some time, for translating

my works into English. Ancient Indian mundane astrology was a great

science, which I want to bring to fore ; it will help in individual

horoscopy as well. I have discovered nothing new. What Neelamji wants to

ban is not "my" method, my only crime is that I made a free software out

of this ancient method, which forms the bedrock of Jyotishaachaarya

curriculum in all Sanskrit universities. Some supposedly "scientific"

persons think all ancient things must be discarded, hence this hue and

cry against me without even testing my free software !! Let them forget

me and my software, why waste so much of time over me ?

-VJ

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

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ ...>

wrote:

>

> Dear RR ji, Sunil ji, Vinay ji and all,

>

> Welcome to this fray RR ji! And thanks for bringing in some hope by

> volunteering to be the good umpire, for a good cause. Can I request

you all

> to put an end to this series which has outlived its value, if it ever

had

> any. Enough matches have been played in public view at various venues

(read

> fora) without any conclusive results. Most of the players who joined

> initially have been smart enough to withdraw, not willing to fritter

away

> their precious time and energy.

>

> Having witnessed this futile exchange (amusingly, painstakingly and

> agonizingly and devastatinglyâ€¦ in that order), for quite a few

months now, I

> do not foresee a peaceful agreement here. With due regards to Vinay

Jha ji's

> knowledge and status, we really do not have the time and inclination

to go

> through the incoherent verbosity of the long-winded messages, with a

> diminutive hope of stumbling upon any nugget of worth.

>

> We cannot master everything in this short life. With one mainstay

> profession, a second line of predictive astrology is more than what I

(and

> some others like me) can handle with some level of justification.

Moreover,

> this is a Jyotish group, and technically we may perhaps discuss our

core

> subject only and not stray into the undesired and unrequited realms of

> history and astronomy.

>

> Hope I am not making an unfair request! Let us get on with our core

> interest.

>

> Regards

> Neelam

>

April 6, 2009

Dear Sunil ji,

Yes I can only agree with you. Because I can see him twisting, and

retracing back on what was said before, and also laying stress on

individuals and attributing adjectives and adverbs to them, rather than

talking tangibly on astrology or astronomy.

About Pitrakaryas etc. I am aware of the injunctions and even normal

grihasta people who have some knowledge about these matters, and who may

not even be astrologers, priests etc. would not go to attend a lunch at

a shradha at somebodys home if he is a distant relative. At least in my

house though we are nnot Brahmins or priests or anybody remotely related

to these sects, yet we try not going to such yearly functions at

relatives unless it is a close relative.

About the other matters you mentioned, yes I can agree to certain points

made by you which I understand. Rest I do not have knowledge so cannot

comment.

I will be careful in corresponding, because I am not able to learn

anything, and can only waste my time here.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskarji and Neelamji,

>

> You can now see how Vinayji is lying. My mails are there to show what

I said. I do not know if his past Marxist background has anything to do

with this anti-astrology attitude. His unsubstantiated (hence false)

claims that he alone understands the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta

because of his tapasya is only meant to make people lose their faith in

the Suryasiddhanta. He is in the same league as Kaulji. He cannot give

you any reference from Manu Smriti as Manu never said that astrologers

are chandalas. What Manu said was that the astrologers, physicians ,

temple priests and people of several other professions are barred from

being invited to Devakarya and Pitrukarya. Only non-professionals like

poor intellectuals were to be invited and the given food and

dakshina.Â . Vinayji claimed that in Mahabharata also the

astrologers are called Chandala. It is another lie and he cannot give

any verse to you. I think Chandrahariji was right in what all he said

> about him.

>

> Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned the

months in his paper on monsoon cycles and that is fallacious. For

example January 1901 to December 1960 may appear toÂ beÂ 59

yearsÂ years but it is actually near 60 years than 59. Similarly

December 1901 to January 1962 may appear to be 61 years but actually it

is more near 60 years. He just wanted to hoodwink the audience. i am

sure the audience wasamused but did not bother to give any importance to

what he said. Monsoon is what decides the crop and he is denyingÂ

the role ofÂ the return of Jupiter, the Sun amd the Moon at the end

of 60 years to the same position convinces me thatÂ he does not

understand the role of the grahas and so he does not really understand

astrology at all. Even the Saturn completes two cycles in 60 years and

so it is also in the same position in 60 years.Â He also admitted

that old data are not available to give the results for several cycles

yet he does

> not hesitate to claim exactly 61 year cycle (ie 61 X 12 = 732 months

cycle) and he has not mentioned any variance of even a month in that.

What an unscientific approach?Â

>

> Please be careful of correspondence with him as he does not hesitate

to twist matters if that suits him.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K.Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 vinayjhaa16

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 4:14 AM

>

TO ALL :

>

> An astrological issue of great importance is being declared to be

>

> non-astrological.

>

> I am amused to find the same team here united against me without any

>

> reason and with abuses, which fruatrated my attempts to discuss

anything

>

> worthwhile in AIA. I am surprised at their teamspirit and want to

point

>

> out the underlying causes which is the cementing force uniting them,

and

>

> what harm they are doing to astrology.

>

> First of all, I will like to answer Bhaskarji's charge that I am

abusing

>

> all astrologers as chaandaalas without providing any refernce to

>

> Manusmriti and MBh. In answer, I am quoting recent mail of Sunilji in

>

> this thread " Kaulji said that the astrologers are Chandalas without

>

> knowing that any dishonest person in any profession is a Chandala. He

>

> did not accept that astrology was known in the ancient times in India

>

> though he himself said that Manu mentioned that astrologers are not to

>

> be invited to participate in Devakarya and Pitrikarya and he was

>

> withholding the fact the physicians and the temple priest are also not

>

> to be invited for ...... "

>

> It was Kaulji who said all astrologers are chaandaalas according to

>

> Manusmriti. Sunilji corerected him by adding that according to Manu

not

>

> only all astrologers but all physicians and all temple priests are

also

>

> chaandaalas. I countered this misinterpretation of Manusmriti by

>

> Sunilji, and said that only those astrologers, physicians and priests

>

> were declared to be chaandaalas who made a living out of these

>

> professions. This is literal meaning. In my view, astrologers and

others

>

> need money to live in this world and therefore have a right to accept

>

> dakshinaa. I know a large number of pandits who adhere to this

principle

>

> and accept dakshinaa but do not ask for fees. I could have accepted

>

> dakshinaas had I not been provided with alternative source for

>

> livlihood. Hence, the real sense of manusmriti must have been that

only

>

> thugs are chaandaalas who pose as astrologers & c but are actually

after

>

> the pockets of their clients. It is strange that Bhaskarji is

forgiving

>

> Sunulji who made false and derogatory remarks against all astrologers

>

> & c, and is inciting all members here on false pretexts. I merely

>

> corrected Sunilji who was making a misinterpretation. Why Bhaskarji

does

>

> not ask Sunilji to provide the verse, which will make it clear who is

>

> lying about Manusmriti and who is leveling false charge on me ?

Instead,

>

> Bhaskarji call me a hypocrite and concludes that I have " nothing to

>

> offer " .

>

> Neelamji joined the fray against me, as she did in AIA, concluding

that

>

> my mails have " any nugget of worth " , repeating Bhaskarji's charge that

I

>

> am good for nothing, and sympathising with Bhaskarji's false charges

>

> against me that I call all astrologers as chaandaalas ( " It is painful

to

>

> see a scholar like Vinay ji use such terminology which has no basis in

>

> any Shastra " ). I am being charged of what was actually said by

Sunilji,

>

> whom Neelamji hails as a good umpire to judge me (earlier she had

hailed

>

> Chandrahariji who could pass a verdict on me). Now, Sreenadhji has

also

>

> joined in this fray ( cf.

>

> http://dir.groups. / group/JyotishGro up/message/ 22847 :

" Does

>

> those parasites in search of a free meal will feed the family of the

>

> astrologer or what?! " . Although I adhere to strict rules of sanyasa, I

>

> need not beg for free meals because I have permanent source of income.

>

> But I am a parasite, because I distribute my works freely !! These

same

>

> people have abused all astrologers who are now falsely blaming me for

>

> doing so, I only corrected the reference. These people do not know how

>

> to quote, how to read and how to behave in a forum.

>

> Neelam Gupta is a liar because she charges me of offering " a second

line

>

> of predictive astrology " . I had made it clear in AIA and in my website

>

> that I strictly adhere to Parashara's predictive astrology (BPHS & c).

>

> Why she is leveling a false charge on me ? These persons want to ban

>

> ( " shun " as bhaskarji said) a person like me who is advocating the

rules

>

> of sages in the field of Vedic Astrrology. Neelam Gupta should ask

>

> Sunilji to stop diverting the discussion away from astrology. Instead,

>

> she is accusing me of this diversion. I never liked any discussion on

>

> history, because I am basically a software developer and lengthy

>

> discussion not related to current problems of practical astrology

>

> hampers my work. But those very persons are charging me of diversion

who

>

> are themselves guilty of diverting the topic on astrology to history

or

>

> to wine and even to sex (I have in store previous mails of these

>

> fellows, some of which contained nothing but obscene abuses to my

mother

>

> and sister). In AIA, I had also quoted a message from PVR Narasimhaji,

>

> supported by Sanjay Rath ji, which said that the team of Chandrahariji

>

> is too dogmatic to listen to others. This same team is after my flesh

>

> and blood now.

>

> Lastly, I must answer the useless message of Sunilji who is hellbent

on

>

> diverting astrological discussions to other things merely with a view

to

>

> malign me and get me banned.He wants a discussion on my technical

paper

>

> on weather forecasting and teleconnections in an astrological forum.

How

>

> many members here know the meaning of " teleconnections " in weather

>

> science ? I am sorry to note that Sunilji regards a difference of 1.7

>

> years as merely " a fraction of a year " !! He rejects the very existence

>

> of 61-year ctcle because he fails to understand a scientific paper.

His

>

> first charge is I had " not given any substantive data " . I worked on

>

> already existing data of IITM ,Pune which I cited in reference-10

which

>

> were originally for 1871-1978 but are constantly being updated (I also

>

> used 1813-2007 dataset from IITM, but it was only for ISMR and not for

>

> whole years, hence I could not use it properly). Sunilji can get these

>

> datasest from IITM (Pune) and check for himself whether I worked

without

>

> authentic data or not. Why should I fill up my paper with data well

>

> known to weather scientists ? I was asked my referees to remove well

>

> known items in order to present only new things. I lucidly explained

in

>

> my paper how I used and analyzed that dataset.

>

> His second charge is that I gave no repeat cycles and gave no dates of

>

> any particular year in my paper. Either his eyesight is defective or

his

>

> intentions are far from sincere. I gave comparison of two cycles in

six

>

> figures, of three cycles in one figure and of four cycles in one

figure

>

> ( Fig-1,2,3,4, 6,7,9) . Annual data of only 136 years are availabe in

the

>

> case of India, which could facilitate comparision of only two whole

>

> cycles of 61 years, and partial comparison of three cycles (1813-2007

>

> dataset can give more span but less reliability due lack of whole

year's

>

> data). Surprisingly, Sunilji asks me to work on " at least two or three

>

> centuries " ; he does not even know that rainfall data for India does

not

>

> exist for so long periods. Clearly, he is a novice in this field, but

>

> Neelamji thanks him for " volunteering to be the good umpire " ! The

>

> referees of IISc or experts of NASA were unfit, and a chemist like

>

> Sunilji should judge my work ! Why he does not inform the referees of

>

> CAOS, IISc that they erred in selecting my paper ?

>

> Sunilji falsely says that my paper does not give years clearly. My

paper

>

> (

>

> http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+

to+Rain+Forecast ing

>

> ) says : " 1957 AD is numbered 87 (= 1957 - 1870 ) and will be found in

>

> the second series in blue . When the second curve was superimposed

upon

>

> the first one, shape of both waveforms coincided in a majority of

cases

>

> when the gap between both series was chosen to be 61 years. Waveform

of

>

> 1891-1923 ( year nos. 21-53 ) had an similarity in shape with that of

>

> 1952-1984 ( year numbers 82-114) in 25 out of 33 years , only 8 years

>

> were out of phase. " Even a cursory glance at Fig-2 in my paper will

>

> convince any unbiased onlooker that annual rainfall waveform replicate

>

> the waveform of 61-years away for 50% of the time, even if we change

61

>

> to 60 or to 62, this replication will cease. Why Sunilji deliberately

>

> falsifies an important discovery is not difficult to guess. He has a

>

> prejuduce for 60-year Jovian cycle, and cannot accept any new fact

>

> against his prejudice. The Jovian cycle is quite different from the

>

> solar cycle of 61 years. Due to his prejudices, Sunilji is

deliberately

>

> falsifying data and facts. He says about me " He does not even know how

>

> to write a scientific paper properly and to report authentically. "

>

> Unfortunately, it is Sunilji whio does not even know how to read a

>

> scientific paper properly and to report honestly.

>

> As for the date of Kalidasa, I do not know his arguments for his

dating

>

> of Kalidasa in 8th century BC. I have no access to his full paper, I

got

>

> a passage quoted in another person's work. Hence, I neither accept nor

>

> refute his dating. But my knowledge of Sunilji's " scientific " temper

>

> leads me to suspect his dating has no substantiation. He had said that

>

> Suryasiddhanta had one hundred thousand verses. He makes wild

statements

>

> and does not cite sources. I am repeating my earlier statement that

the

>

> true date of Kalidasa can be judged only by procuring some old prints

of

>

> Ritusamhara which contained a verse at the end stating the date and

>

> tithi, but era was not stated ; later publishers omitted this verse

>

> because they thought a text of literature should not contain a

>

> mathematical verse about dating written in archaic astrological

>

> language. I have a photocopy of that page, the worn out book is in the

>

> possession of an elderly person. Unfortunately, Sunilji pokes fun at

all

>

> my statements without any reason. It is asign of his bizarre

>

> " scientific " attitude !

>

> He is misguided by his ignorance in saying " Vinayji is wrong when he

>

> says that INSA (India National Science Academy) papers are not

>

> peer-reviewed. " I never said Chandrahariji' s papers were not

published

>

> in peer-reviewed journals, I said that Chandrahariji published his

wrong

>

> interprewtations of Suryasiddhanta in journals whose panel included

>

> peers of other disciplines, not a singlr expert of Suryasiddhanta was

>

> there. I can prove this statement in a court of law, as I have already

>

> done. There is no other cure for liars who pose as experts of texts

>

> which they do not understand. Neelamji is a light minded person who

>

> thinks the fundamental texts of Indian astrology should not be

discussed

>

> and monsoon-cycles have nothiong to do with astrology. If she has no

>

> interest in serious issues, she can keep away from these topics and

>

> forget me. But no, the friends of Chandrahariji have a mission : they

>

> want to modify the meaning of Suryasiddhanta which is not possible as

>

> long as I am here. Hence, I must be hanged or fired.

>

> Friends, wait for some time. I am going to dispel all this fog created

>

> by a small team (from AIA), for which I need some time, for

translating

>

> my works into English. Ancient Indian mundane astrology was a great

>

> science, which I want to bring to fore ; it will help in individual

>

> horoscopy as well. I have discovered nothing new. What Neelamji wants

to

>

> ban is not " my " method, my only crime is that I made a free software

out

>

> of this ancient method, which forms the bedrock of Jyotishaachaarya

>

> curriculum in all Sanskrit universities. Some supposedly " scientific "

>

> persons think all ancient things must be discarded, hence this hue and

>

> cry against me without even testing my free software !! Let them

forget

>

> me and my software, why waste so much of time over me ?

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> , neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@

....>

>

> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear RR ji, Sunil ji, Vinay ji and all,

>

> >

>

> > Welcome to this fray RR ji! And thanks for bringing in some hope by

>

> > volunteering to be the good umpire, for a good cause. Can I request

>

> you all

>

> > to put an end to this series which has outlived its value, if it

ever

>

> had

>

> > any. Enough matches have been played in public view at various

venues

>

> (read

>

> > fora) without any conclusive results. Most of the players who joined

>

> > initially have been smart enough to withdraw, not willing to fritter

>

> away

>

> > their precious time and energy.

>

> >

>

> > Having witnessed this futile exchange (amusingly, painstakingly and

>

> > agonizingly and devastatinglyâ€¦ in that order), for quite a few

>

> months now, I

>

> > do not foresee a peaceful agreement here. With due regards to Vinay

>

> Jha ji's

>

> > knowledge and status, we really do not have the time and inclination

>

> to go

>

> > through the incoherent verbosity of the long-winded messages, with a

>

> > diminutive hope of stumbling upon any nugget of worth.

>

> >

>

> > We cannot master everything in this short life. With one mainstay

>

> > profession, a second line of predictive astrology is more than what

I

>

> (and

>

> > some others like me) can handle with some level of justification.

>

> Moreover,

>

> > this is a Jyotish group, and technically we may perhaps discuss our

>

> core

>

> > subject only and not stray into the undesired and unrequited realms

of

>

> > history and astronomy.

>

> >

>

> > Hope I am not making an unfair request! Let us get on with our core

>

> > interest.

>

> >

>

> > Regards

>

> > Neelam

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

April 6, 2009

Dear Sunil ji,This is the second round of unpleasant exchanges with him. Problem is that he even misunderstands the plain language, how do you even try to explain the logic?After all this I wasn't even surprised to see a spiteful, threatening mail he just sent to my private ID.

Thanks for your concern. Will keep that in mind.RegardsNeelam

April 6, 2009

Instead of wasting thousands of man hours from all sides in proving

nothing, and " No Show " , if only he had spent a few thousand rupees on

some good software desinger , he could have removed that incorrigble

stuff there, and posted a simple link from where all could download his

software easily and make their individual assessments. At present the

state is such that, he is talking very high of the omlettes he can make

and how tasty they can be if one can eat them, but he is not capable

enough to make the omlette and serve us, or guide us to a place where

they are available for either payment or for free. So how can one judge

his claims ?

At the moment we cant even see the eggs, forget the eating of an

Omlette.

And the most irritating fact is that though he claims to be a

Brahmachari and a great spiritualist, but does not have the necessary

state of mind corresponding to his claims, which is mature, unrestless,

and wise enough to make him understand that nobody means him any harm,

nobody is here to criticise him unecessarily, we are not his enemies,

and there is no need to get touchy about simple satatements made by

anyone and take it to heart.

Bhaskar.

, neelam gupta

<neelamgupta07 wrote:

>

> Dear Sunil ji,

>

> This is the second round of unpleasant exchanges with him. Problem is

that

> he even misunderstands the plain language, how do you even try to

explain

> the logic?

> After all this I wasn't even surprised to see a spiteful, threatening

mail

> he just sent to my private ID.

>

> Thanks for your concern. Will keep that in mind.

>

> Regards

> Neelam

>

April 6, 2009

Dear members,Regarding Astrology and Its relation with profession is in the following story.Many

thousands of years ago the Lord of the universe and God of the three Lokas, Lord Sri Vishnu Narayana was

having a sleep on the bed of the Cobra.

The Goddess Lakshmi was respectfully nursing his feet.

At

the very same time the Maharishi Bhrigu presented himself to the Vaykunth Loka at the entrance.

Two

Door-keepers was standing at the entrance to the Vaykunth Loka. They were named Jai and Vijay. First of all

they welcomed Bhrigu Rishi, and after

that they asked him not to enter at the moment to Lord Sri Vishnu, since he was sleeping.

Not

being allowed entrance to Lord Sri Vishnu Narayana the Maharishi Bhrigu got very angry and said to Jai and

Vijay: "By stopping the Maharishi

Bhrigu you have insulted the most great brahmin soul. Due to that you can get a curse, which will force

you to be reborn on the Earth at least

three times."

When

listening to this threat from Maharishi Bhrigu, Jai and Vijay both bended down their heads and were very silent.

Now the Bhrigu Rishi could enter the

door, without anybody stopping him anylonger.

The

Maharishi Bhrigu then entered the place where Lord Sri Vishnu Narayana was sleeping with Goddess Lakshmi at

his feet. When Bhrigu Rishi saw this, he

became full of anger, because he thought that Lord Vishnu was not really sleeping, but only

pretending to sleep just to insult him.

This

was the time, when the Maharishi Bhrigu with his right leg kicked the chest of Lord Sri Vishnu. When he was hit

Lord Vishnu opened his eyes and went up.

Lord

Vishnu was just astonished to see the Bhrigu Rishi standing there. So he bended down his head with folded hands,

and said to Bhrigu Rishi: "My Lord,

my chest is the strongest thing in the world, like a mountain, but your feet are so soft. Maybe you got hurt

while kicking me. So please forgive me

for that."

While

listening to the words of Lord Vishnu, the Bhrigu rishi got very calm and felt very guilty, and he asked the

God please to forgive him.20

As

all this happened, Lakshmi, the Goddess of wealth, got very angry, and she said to Maharishi Bhrigu: "By

behaving this badly towards my husband,

you have insulted me. Therefor I now give a curse, so that you and all your fellow Brahmins will always live

in poverty begging for your living. I

will never come to your home."

After

listening to this the Bhrigu Rishi said: "Poverty Lakshmi! Whatever crime I did was in anger, and I have

already asked the Lord Sri Vishnu to

forgive me. By not thinking very nicely, you have now given this curse to me and my fellow Brahmins. But

anyway what has happened has happened. I

will now write a Jyotish Grantha, from which the Brahmins can predict all about the past,

present and future of every person in

the world. They will get good knowledge as well as good earnings from this. They will be able to earn

their livelihood. And this way you have

got to come to their home anyhow!"

Having

said this Maharishi Bhrigu went back to his ashram, and wrote his book known as "Bhrigu Samhita"

which contains the life-stories of the

past, present and future of all the people in the world on the basis of their Janma-kundalies.

First

of all Bhrigu Rishi taught the principles of this Grantha to his own son and disciple Shukra. By Shukra it was

little by little distributed to the

Brahmins all over the world.20

On

the basis of this the Brahmins have predicted about the past, present and future, and made a living from

that. This is all the story about the

Bhrigu Samhita.20i think all the people might not know about it..Regards,K.Sai Krishna--- On Mon, 6/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re:

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Cc: Date: Monday, 6 April, 2009, 7:58 PM

Dear Bhaskarji and Neelamji,You can now see how Vinayji is lying. My mails are there to show what I said. I do not know if his past Marxist background has anything to do with this anti-astrology attitude. His unsubstantiated (hence false) claims that he alone understands the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta because of his tapasya is only meant to make people lose their faith in the Suryasiddhanta. He is in the same league as Kaulji. He cannot give you any reference from Manu Smriti as Manu never said that astrologers are chandalas. What Manu said was that the astrologers, physicians , temple priests and people of several other professions are

barred from being invited to Devakarya and Pitrukarya. Only non-professionals like poor intellectuals were to be invited and the given food and dakshina. . Vinayji claimed that in Mahabharata also the

astrologers are called Chandala. It is another lie and he cannot give any verse to you. I think Chandrahariji was right in what all he said about him.Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned the months in his paper on monsoon cycles and that is fallacious. For example January 1901 to December 1960 may appear to be 59 years years but it is actually near 60 years than 59. Similarly December 1901 to January 1962 may appear to be 61 years but actually it is more near 60 years. He just wanted to hoodwink the audience. i am sure the audience wasamused but did not bother to give any importance to what he said. Monsoon is what decides the crop and he is denying the role of the return of Jupiter, the Sun amd the Moon at the end of 60 years to the same position convinces me that he does not understand the role of the grahas and so he does not really understand astrology at all. Even the Saturn

completes two cycles in 60 years and so it is also in the same position in 60 years. He also admitted that old data are not available to give the results for several cycles yet he does not hesitate to claim exactly 61 year cycle (ie 61 X 12 = 732 months cycle) and he has not mentioned any variance of even a month in that. What an unscientific approach? Please be careful of correspondence with him as he does not hesitate to twist matters if that suits him.Regards,Sunil K.Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 4/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>Monday, April 6, 2009, 4:14 AM