Greeks vs Indians HOLY JEUS!

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:25 AMDear Rohini,I mentioned Rig Veda as saying that "All men are brothers". I now realise that I should have given the

relevant verse, as some group members may doubt my statement. The relevant verse is as follows:अजà¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤·à¥à¤ à¤¾à¤¸à¥‹ अकनिषà¥à¤ à¤¾à¤¸ à¤à¤¤à¥‡ सम भरातरो वावà¥à¤°à¥à¤§à¥à¤ƒ सौभगाय | (Rig Veda 5.60.5)This means that no one is big, no one is small, all are equal and all are brothers.Best wishes,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote:Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>To:

Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 3:53 PM

 

Dear Sunil da,

 

Thanks for the very thoughtful post. I shall address just the beginning and ending portions of it, for now.

 

Indeed, one must not attack willy-nilly, something that has been occuring increasingly in modern times and more so on Internet. I sometimes in my wild fantasies wonder if the individuals who fight tooth and nail on internet were to meet face to face! I would love to be the fly on the wall at such a meeting ;-)

 

That said, while it is true that one must fight for a just cause and for what one believes is the truth, but at times it is also useful to demonstrate that discretion is the better part of valour.

 

All that modern stuff aside, it perplexes more than amazes me that in the puratan purer times of higher principles and values, with such honourable living standards, people still needed to fight, go to war and to kill! I suppose there is the concept of dharmayuddha and some of the killing and bloodshed may be metaphorical and so on but it seems that anabolism must be balanced with catabolism in a cosmic sense. This is what I love about nature. It is so intrinsic and so verily jives with life itself, with the human experience itself. No wonder scientists equate Nature with God. Scientists are trying to understand Nature, spiritualists are trying to understand and realize God. Perhaps they are both really climbing up the same mountain with the mountain of ignorance getting between them and hence they cannot see each other or the unique perspectives that each has of the very same reality!

 

Now to the simpler matter of the last para. I am sorry if I misled you. I was just expressing my admiration about scientists like you and particularly chemists who have the knowledge to potentially understand much of nature because I have heard that chemistry is at the core of everything, although physics too being the other pure science. I was lamenting that I wish I had brains enough or good teachers to be able to learn chemistry. Maybe, in the next lifetime :-)

 

I also find it admirable that chemists such as you have a deep interest in astrology and spiritual matters. I realize you said that astrology was not your forte but from knowing quite a few astrologers (of all cloths), it is not the forte of some of them, either!

 

Warm regards,

 

Rohini

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Rohini,

>

> Yes. Manu, the first law-giver, had prescribed the rules of the war and one rule among those was that a person must warn his opponent about the intention to fight (ie. to fight it out, over whatever be the cause, for which fighting may be considered necessary). A person has to fight only with the opponent only if the latter is prepared for the fight. One should not attack an unarmed opponent, even though there is enmity between them. You might have read in the Bhagavad Gita that at the end of the first chapter Arjuna laid down his arms. Then in the beginning of the next (ie.second) chapter he requested Lord Krishna for guidance and the Lord could impart the lessons of the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna, even though it was in the middle of the battle field, simply because Arjuna was unarmed and Bhishma, the commander of the Kaurava army, was a law-abiding person and

he would not allow any attack from the Kaurava side on the unarmed

> Arjuna. Many scholars, who do not know this, wonder as to how the Bhagavad Gita could have been delivered in the battle-field.

>

> Manu gave some more rules for the war. Then just before the Mahabharata war some additional rules were made, such as that after the battle is over for the day all would be friends again till the battle was resumed on the next day. In Mahabharata you will find that after framing these rules they themselves were surprised that they have made such rules.These rules were strictly observed till Bhishma was in command and later on however there were many breaches of the rules.

>

> One thing stands out from this that the Bharat-vashis of those times believed that fighting may be necessary over some issues but basically all are friends. Of course there were some black sheeps like Duryodhana who did not inherently believe in the rules as he made his own rules and in the end he did not gain anything by that attitude.

>

> As regards your second query the Sun is the source of all energy and all interplay of energy is possible due to the Sun. Curiously it is said that the number one (numerologically) people are generally more energetic than the other people, when the Sun rises and they become tired or lethargic towards the end of the day when the Sun sets. Please let me know if you have observed any such thing. The Sun is the giver of knowledge too. Yajnavalkya got his Vedic knowledge from the Sun. Mayasura and even Hanuman were said to have received the knowledge of Astrology from the Sun. The Sun spurs all of us to learn things and to do things while the Moon being the ruler of mind allows us to think and retrospect. We have to respect the role of both the Sun and the Moon in our life.

>

> I do not know if what I wrote would be of help. I was quite curious to know that you have a Chemistry background too. Can you please let me know more about you and what are your interests.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 4/8/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 4:33 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> From your mouth to God's ears or at least to the Divinity that hides within all of us -- which is what I believe the so called Life-Force is! When trapped in a human shell of "maati", the Divine force forms a living human being. Sadly, most often the maati/earth takes over.

>

> That said, I was always taken by the statement that I once read that in times of Mahabharata, enemies -- who were really friends, relatives and Gurubhais etc -- used to visit enemy camps after sundown without fear! Now, not being versed in ancient scriptural literature at all, perhaps such was not true and I am mis-guided. Please correct me if that is the case, since I have addressed you as Dada.

>

> A peasant like me would wonder, "Is it the Sun that makes humans fight? When the sun was up, the Mahabharata war was fierce and deadly, but when the Sun went down -- the war vanished and everyone became friend-relative- gurubhai again! What Maya! And they call Chandra, the Queen of the Night Mayavini!"

>

> So confusing to an astrologer, indeed!

>

> What is the truth?

>

> Rohini

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rohini,

> >

> > Thank you for the good words.

> >

> > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread and people will be benefitted.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sunilda,

> >

> > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

> > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

> >

> > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

> >

> > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I had been observing that ground-swell) .

> >

> > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good' affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of "knowing", a wisdom that could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

> >

> > Pranaams

> >

> > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > >

> > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you kindly let me know about your age etc.

> > >

> > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time in the

AIA forum and he somehow

> > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

> > >

> > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Who is this "Vinayji" who claims so much of your attention and energy and why should you think he should ours as well?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At least in the post that I responded to?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Rohiniranjan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear all.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

> > >

> > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha.

> > >

> > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 2)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

> > >

> > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

> > >

> > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

> > >

> > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

> > >

> > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

> > >

> > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

> > >

> > > > have taught Mayasura.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 3)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

> > >

> > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

> > >

> > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

> > >

> > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

> > >

> > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

> > >

> > > > about it with proof.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 4)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

> > >

> > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

> > >

> > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

> > >

> > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

> > >

> > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

> > >

> > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

> > >

> > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

> > >

> > > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

> > >

> > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

> > >

> > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

> > >

> > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

> > >

> > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

> > >

> > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

> > >

> > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

> > >

> > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

> > >

> > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

> > >

> > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

> > >

> > > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

> > >

> > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

> > >

> > > > attack on him.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 5)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji says

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

> > >

> > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

> > >

> > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me after getting this information.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

> > >

> > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

> > >

> > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

> > >

> > > > playing tricks with him.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 6)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

> > >

> > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

> > >

> > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

> > >

> > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

> > >

> > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

> > >

> > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

> > >

> > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

> > >

> > > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

> > >

> > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

> > >

> > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 7)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

> > >

> > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

> > >

> > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

> > >

> > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

> > >

> > > > given in his own websites.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 8)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

> > >

> > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

> > >

> > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

> > >

> > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

> > >

> > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

> > >

> > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

> > >

> > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

> > >

> > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

> > >

> > > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

> > >

> > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

> > >

> > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

> > >

> > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

> > >

> > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

> > >

> > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

> > >

> > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

> > >

> > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

> > >

> > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

> > >

> > > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

> > >

> > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

> > >

> > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

> > >

> > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

> > >

> > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

> > >

> > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

> > >

> > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

> > >

> > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

> > >

> > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

> > >

> > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

> > >

> > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

> > >

> > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

> > >

> > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

> > >

> > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

> > >

> > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

> > >

> > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

> > >

> > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

> > >

> > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

> > >

> > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

> > >

> > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

> > >

> > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

> > >

> > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

> > >

> > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as he

> > >

> > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

> > >

> > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

> > >

> > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert that

> > >

> > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

> > >

> > > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

> > >

> > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.

> > >

> > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

> > >

> > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Regards nevertheless,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > >

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > To ALL :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > comparative manner. This cannot be done in an hostile environment

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > deliberately being created by a person (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) who has

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > made no contribution to either science or to astrology (although he

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > writes on other topics, often good pieces) and is attacking me just out

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of misunderstanding, to put it mildly. I was surprised that my paper "A

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > New Approach to Rain Forecasting"

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > (http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+ to+Rain+Forecast in\

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > g) which was accepted by leading scientific institution of India made

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > him believe that I was a cheat ! Why he did not inform IISc (Bangalore)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that I was a cheat ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > To Sunil ji :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You will get astrology from me if you talk astrology (which you never

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > did), but rebuffs if you talk nonsense and level false charges on me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Your uncivil words about me from my days in AIA upto your recent mail

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > convinces me that you have no desire to learn either decency or other

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > things you do not already know. I know your personal details and some of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > your works. I do not like your manner of making unfounded assertions

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > without providing reliable evidences. How one can write "the great poet

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Kalidasa of the 8th century BCE in his drama Vikramorvashia" , without

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > providing some reason of "8th century BCE" dating ( cf. 'The dotted

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > record and its effect on the Ancient Indian chronology, including the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > antiquity of the Veda and the Bhagavad Gita') !! One has a right to make

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > discoveries, but not without providing reasons. If such a person asks me

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to provide proofs of my statements about topics which are beyond his

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > field of interest, I can only be amused.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Read my previous mails in which I have mentioned some of the older

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > sources of Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. Or ask some professor of any

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sanskrit university teaching the syllabus of Jyotishaachaarya, they will

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > enlighten you. You will never understand difficult texts like

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Siddhaantatattvaviv eka of Kamlaakara Bhatta. The last verse of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhanta says it is "rahasyam brahma-sammitam" . Physical planets

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > are not rahasyam brahma-sammitam , they are perceived by sages and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > lechers alike. In the beginning of Suryasiddhanta, it is said that Lord

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Surya disappeared after talking to Mayaasura. Can the physical Sun do so

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ?? If Suryasiddhanta is telling false and unscientific stories, why

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > blame me for it ? Go and fight with Lord Surya for His false statements.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Mayaasura had to undergo rigorous tapasyaa for seeing Lord Surya, and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > there is no mention of two or even one tola of wine as a part of such a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tapasyaa. Only a tapasvi can see Saurpaksha. Others may see only its

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > results.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > With other members, I have seen you discussing astrology, but with me,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you are under an oath never to discuss astrology and deliberately want

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to get things out of me by abusing me. Now you are falsely calling me a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > liar. I did not call you a liar. You had challended that I lied about

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saptasindhu flowing eastward, and when I reluctantly showed you the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > proof, you started abusing me for "misinterpretation" . What I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > misinterpreted ? I provided merely an exact literal translation of the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > verse and gave no interpretation at all. You got the fact of eastward

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you will use it in your essays,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > without acknowledging me for being the source of this information, and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > instead have already started abusing me after getting this information.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > This is a sign of your worthiness. I do not know your contribution to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > science, although you declare "I am a scientist" ! Having a degree and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > makes one a scientist ? My scientific papers accepted by world renowned

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > institutions made me a liar and a cheat in your eyes !! Have you ever

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > produced any scientific paper accepted by world class institutions ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > In AIA, Mr Chandrahari was calling me a "cheat" and "unscientific" again

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and again, hence I was forced to show my scientific as well as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrological credentials (

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ acc\

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > epted_by_CAOS% 2C_IISc

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Credentials

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay_Jha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ?t=anon) , after which you started casting doubts over acceptance of my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > paper by CAOS, IISc.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Instead of asking IISc and other institutions about the genuineness of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > evidences I showed, you started expressing unfounded doubts about my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > veracity and started attacking me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Instead of levelling baseless charges against me after viewing my works,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you should have asked me to show those weather forecasts which were

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > approved by NASA and other institutions, and should have asked me to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > explain the methods behind those forecasts. I really wanted to discuss

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the methods and wanted to show proofs. But you discussed my supposedly

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > fake letters and false statements without proving that I was producing

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > fake papers. It shows how genuinely you are concerned about truth and it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > also show how intolerant you are towards the achievements of someone.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Instead of trying to understand the methods, you started attacking me

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > personally. When I started a new thread in AIA named 'Tantric

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Astrology' to explain the ancient methods of Yaamala Tantra used in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mundane astrology, you deliberately diverted the discussion to the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > benefits of wine, knowing well that a person avowed to lifelong

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > brahmacharya would be forced to leave such discussions. You were never

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > serious in any astrological discussion ; astrology is not your field ; I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > wonder why you join astrological forums ! I left AIA due to wastage of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > my time over false accusations and abuses from you and your friends. Now

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you want the same in this forum. Instead of discussing astrological

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > topics, you want to discuss my character without providing any proof of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > what I cheated or where I lied. The fact is opposite : you say two tolas

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of wine maked a man divine, and I believe in the opposite : I subsist on

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > one meal a day, having forsaken salt, spices, oils & c in foods, besides

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > performing a lot of other things to purify myself. Why my way of life

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > gives so much pain to you that you spend hours writing nonsense to me ??

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Do some soul searching and devote your time to "(1) Ancient Indian

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Chronology, (2) Finding the Original Shastu Tantra, (3) finding the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Original bhagavad Gita", which you once declared to be your fields of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > interest.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Your language is getting from bad to worse. I promised I am not going to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tolerate your misbehaviour, because I am convinced you are avowed to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > disrupt any genuine ASTROLOGICAL topic I may ever discuss. I told you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > again and again that you must discuss astrology here, and not the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > benefits of wine & c or level personal attacks needlessly. I did not want

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to discuss anything with you, because your real intention was disruption

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of all astrological discussion and to harass me so that I leave all

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > forums.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Do not try to quote me falsely or out of context. I have 6749 mails in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > my store to show your falsehood, why you are threatening me of show my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > supposedly false views on Saptasindhu. I am under an oath never to lie,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and I did not marry or go into any service because I did not want to be

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > compelled by circumstances to lie ever in my life. I know neither my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > words nor concrete evidences will never convince you, because you have

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > an incurable negative attitude towards me due to my way of life.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Astrology is the mother of modern science, but astrology has been

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > degraded. It is your disbelief in astrology that even good uses of it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > are doubted by you. By insulting or attacking me , you will never get

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > anyhing worthwhile out of me, even if I give it to you, because the real

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > giver of knowledge is Lord Surya Whose existence you refuse to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > acknowledge.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Please calm down and some to senses. There are murderers, rapists,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > dacoits in the world. Why all your anger is focussed on me ?? Search

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > your own soul. You will find all three sets of Saptasindhus within your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > own Self. Try to understand the original meaning of the word "nadi"

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ('river' is a Laukika meaning, find out the original Vedic meaning from

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the root).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Just give one reference from ancient scriptures to prove about your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saurapaksha and drikpaksha. I trust the scriptures more than your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > imaginary outpourings.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 2)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Do you want me to send the copies of my mails and your mails to the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > group to show who was lying on the Saptasindhu issue?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -SKB

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Sat, 4/4/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Saturday, April 4, 2009, 7:14 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunilji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You do not know how difficult it is for me to control my words while I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > answer your mails. Now I must conclude your sole mission is to disrupt

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrological discussions. There are good articles on Sarasvati in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > internet where you can contribute ; this topic has no relation to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology. You are lying that you found the verse yourself , I sent the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > verse to you. Moreover, I never misinterpreted the verse, I gave the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > literal translation while you believe your fancuful meanings to be the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > real translation. there is no mention of stormy conditions in that

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > verse. literal translation and interpretation are different things. The

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > point I made was that Saptasindhu was in the heartland of Aryavarta as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mentioned by Vyaasaji, but you buried that point under a false argument

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > over your stormy conditions merely to poke fun at my supposedly wrong

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > interpretation.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Your next point about Hartley and Burgess is a mere proof of your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ignorance of Suryasiddhanta and of your blind faith on western

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > commentators, as well as of your habit of producing false arguments with

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > a view to prove false things. Suryasiddhantic true Sun and true Moon

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > have great difference with Sun and Moon of physical astronomy, but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhantic tithi has negligible difference with that of physical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astronomy, because tithi is relative difference between Sun and Moon.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhantic synodical lunar month is equal to 29.530587947 days,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > which is very near to modern value. Eclipses are related to synodical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > period, ie, to relative position of Sun and Moon. Hence Hartley found no

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > much difference between timings of Suryasiddhantic eclipses and physical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > eclipses. i have used the term "no much difference" while you use therm

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > "accurately" which is a lie. But even if eclipses have no much

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > difference, absolute position of true Sun or true Moon have great

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > differences, esp when we go into past. This difference increases at

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the rate of 360 degrees in 42000 years. Another source of difference is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > nearly 1.5 degrees of difference in mandaphal of Suryasiddhantic Moon

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and physical (Drikpakshiya) Moon. Third source is difference between the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > length of Suryasiddhantic solar year and Drikpakshiya year (sidereal ;

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tropical year has less difference).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You can live in your imaginary world of Maayaa believing in physical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and sensory things. It is not my duty to enlighten you. That is why I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > always tried to hold information, and simply answered your false and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > motivated charges on me. If Vyaasaji talks about eclipses, you conclude

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > he must talk about Drikpakshiya and not about Sauarpakshiya eclipses and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > do noy feel any need to substantiate that physical reality is the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ultimate reality. Gita says that persons believing merely in the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > physical are destined to hell. If Lord Krishna could not save such

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > persons, how can I ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > My friend, you will now receive tit-for-tat replies for your foolish

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mails. I will give information, proofs & c only when you come to believe

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that astrological concepts must be proven astrologically and not

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > physically. although I do not deem you fit for astrologiccal discussion,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I am giving you an instance of what is astrological proof.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Make national horoscopes at the time of nirayana mesha samktaantis on

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the basis of Drikpakshiya and Saurapakshiya computations, and compare

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the phalita results of both horoscopes along the principles of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Paraashara. You will find that Saurapakshiya predictions conform to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > actual events perfectly, while Drikpakshiya predictions bear no such

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > relation to reality in an overwhelming majority of cases. I wasted

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > decades on mutual comparison of Drikpakshiya and Saurapakshiya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > horoscopes in mundane and individual horoscopy, but you dismiss

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saurapaksha without any astrological investigation. You have no interest

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > in astrological investigation of astrological entities. Suryasiddhanta

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is an astrological treatise which has no relation to physical astronomy,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > which can be proven from the text itself, but it is better to undertake

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > an unbiased comparison of Drikpakshiya and Saurapakshiya horoscopes to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > arrive at any conclusive finding. But you are too biased to be

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > interested

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > in any astrological investigation and are adamant on wasting my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > precious time. If you agree to test Suryasiddhanta "ASTROLOGICALLY" , I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > will retract all my statements against you and will apologize for using

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > harsh words, but if you are intent upon disrupting astrological

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > discussion with non-astrological BAKAWAAS, I will use harsher words for

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you in future, because an astrological forum should have no place for

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > non-astrological nonsense.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009 2:50:48 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I think you forget things. In AIA you wrote that Saraswati moved from

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > east to west. Then I told you that at Paunta saheb one stream of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saraswati goes to meet Yamuna and it then moves eastward and that is how

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > it is said that there is Triveni Sangam at Prayag. The other stream of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saraswati went westward to be one of the seven rivers (Saptasindhu) .

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > When I asked you the reference as to where you found that Saraswati

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > changed direction fron east to west you did not give and stated that you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > have no time. Later on you sent me a mail personally saying that you are

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > going to write an article and even though the Mahabharata is in front of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you, you will not give me the reference. Then I found the verse in the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Mahabharata and sent you the verse and told you how you mistranslated it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > . That day when Lord Krishna was going to Hastinapur it was so stormy

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that the eastward moving Saptasindhu (mind that Saraswati is not sataed

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > here) appeared to move in the reverse

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > direction. I have only told you that the Vedas have mentioned more

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > than one Saptasindhu.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > When I told you that Hartley could find out the date and time of the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > eclipses accurately from the Suryasiddhanta as edited by Burgess you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > just ignored that.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I have no objection if you live with your imaginations as you have not

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > given any reference so far to substantiate what you say. Vedavyasa

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > talked about the eclipses and their effects also and I am sure that he

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > referred to the physical phenomena and these did not occur in your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > imaginary locations.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 4/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, April 3, 2009, 10:30 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil ji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I believe you are a sincere person, that is why I am answering your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mails. But you are blindly following the teachings of western

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > commentators who distorted traditional jyotisha. What you call "my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > imaginary" Saurpaksha is not my invention ; the concept of two Suns and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > two Moons was present in Vedic and anti-Vedic variants of Indian

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology from prehistoric times, and has continued to modern times. But

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > with the progress of materialism, the case of Saurpaksha has weakened

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and a majority of persons do not want to get it discussed. I have no

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > intention to persuade them, it is futile. If you do not believe in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saurpaksha, please keep away from me. Phalita Jyotisha is the only proof

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of Saurpaksha, because Saurpakshiya planets cannot be directly

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > perceived, but you never wanted to "test" my assertions through

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > practical analyses of horoscopes made along Drik and Saur methods, which

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is the only proper way to decide the issue.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I already said that my computational ability is based upon mastery of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mathematical tables like log and antilog tables, which is not a magical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > or tantric feat. why are you angry at me if I committed the crime of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > learning these tables by rote in my school days ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You are wrong in asserting : "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." If you have not

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > read ancient texts, it is not my fault. You called me a liar about

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > eastward flowing Saptasindhu, and I did not try to give you the verse

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > because I wanted you to search that verse through the hint I provided.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > But did not "waste" you time over my false claims. And when I provided

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the verse, you did not beg an apology for you uncivil remarks against

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > me. Read your mails : have you ever used such a language for any other

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > person in youtr life ? I used to read your messages to others in AIA and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > was surprided with the difference. You have singled me out for ridicule.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > The very concept of presiding deity of a planet is your inventiomn. It

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is supported neither by modern science nor by any astrological texts of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > repute.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You say : "Regarding ayanamsha as a Saurpaksha concept also you did

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > not give any reference to back your statement." Instead, you should

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > provide a reference to back your wrong belief of ayanamsha being a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > concept of physical astronomy. Modern physical astronomy has a concept

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of precession of equinoxes, which was known to ancients. But they never

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > called it ayanamsha. What they called ayanamsha was known as trapidation

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > or libration, which is not a phenomenon of the physical world and was

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > therefore rejected by astronomers after Copernicus. Till then, the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > socalled discovery of Hipparchus was rotting on papyrus.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you refrain from false charges on me and really want proofs, I can

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > show you. But hitherto you have only wasted my time. For the last time,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I request you to test astrological concepts astrologically, or stop

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > sending messages to me. I still believe you are a sincere person, as I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > gather from your messages to others. It is only me who has a special

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > treatment.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you forget the past and stop referring to what you said or what I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > said, things can get alright and you may be able to test the proofs I am

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ready to provide. But if your intention is merely to waste my time over

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > personal feuds so that I leave all forums, I will request you to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > behave like a gentleman and forget me for ever. If you think my views

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > are my inventions which will die with me, you are mistaken. The best

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > works on Saurpaksha have never been translated into any language but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > form a part of syllabus of Jyotisharya in Sanskrit unuiversities. It is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > neither possible nor my duty to teach these obscure ancient texts here

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > in forums. You should enrol in those universities where these

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > texts are taught. But if you want verifiable proofs, I am willing to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > provide. But I am still sorry for your disbelief in my paper being

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > accepted at CAOS, IISc. If I am a liar, how you will ever listen to me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > And without listening properly, how will ever know my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > views properly ? Hence, either stop all communication, or begin anew

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > forgetting all past and talk on proofs only. Then I will be able to give

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you proofs. But if you continue wasting my time over useless matters,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > including present message, who will write down the proofs you ask me to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > supply ? I have many tasks at hand. I know you have a very low opinion

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of me. You forget that I tolerated direct abuses by Mr Chandrahari till

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > his last message to me. I tolerated him because I believed him to be an

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > honest intellectual. Sreenadh led me to believe so. Sreenadh requested

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > him to discuss the matters with me amicably without abusing, but failed.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sreenadh sent me works of Mr Chandrahari, so that I could discuss his

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ideas. After reading these works of Mr Chandrahari, i came to learn that

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Mr Chandrahari was rendering a faulty interpretation of Suryasiddhanta

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and was propagating a false concept of ayanamsha in the name of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhanta. Mr Chandrahari has every right

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > to propound his views, but he has no right to falsely call his views

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhantic. Then I shot back at Mr Chandrahari, challenging him for

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > shaastraartha. As a result, Mr Chandrahari left the field and Sreenadh

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > started abusing and attacking me. Is it shaastraartha ? Who avoided a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > free and fair debate ? Who vitiated thje environment ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > When I tried to avoid this unwanted controversy and started a new

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > topic on tantric astrology, why a discussion on astrology was diverted

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to wine ? Did I start a discussion on the use of wine in astrology ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you really want proofs about foolproof methods of astrology, of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > existence of Saurpaksha, etc, you will have to read my articles on

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tantric astrology. But if you remove "astrology" and discuss only

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > "tantra", then I have no time for you. You do not know what you are

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > missing, because you have consistently refused to listen, by diverting

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the issues. In future, please read my messages twice before answering.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > There is no hurry. Do not answer in haste. I do not know you future, but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I am going to live here for 35 years more. Forget that I am a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > brahmachaari, if you can check you references to wine. If you again

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > start discussing the benefits of wine, I will have to say that it is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > sinful for me to listen to such talks. It is an astrological forum and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > there is no use of discussing wine in these forums. I am not belittling

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you, I am merely stating my limitations. I belonged to a rich and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > powerful family, and topped in science and later in English literature ,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > renounced worldly things for the sake of my salvation. I cannot

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tolerate things which are banned for a lifelong brahmachaari. If you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > want any discussion at all, you will have to remember my conditions. It

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is my last non-astrological message to you. Either talk astrology, or

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > stop talking to me. I have no time for other things, esp personal feuds,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > in these forums. Presently you are in a fighting mood. Hence, please

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > rest for a few days and when your mood calms down, start discussing

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology, if you want. I have forgiven even obscene abuses (not from

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you) to me in . But if think you never used foul words for me, I am

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > forgiving you for the last time. I will not forgive any attempt to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > divert the discussion to non-astrological issues, even if you eulogize

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > me. I care neither for abuses nor for praises. If you think you abused

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > me or I abused you, please forget the past and start anew.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You main problem is that you want discussions with a software

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > developer without touching his software, due to your prejudices about

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhanta. Ignorance can be cured (you are not ignorant), but there

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is no cure for prejudice (you are really prejudiced, I am not abusing

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you, I really believe so). Forget subjective matters, and come to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology objectively, and test objective proofs which I tried in vain

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to show under the title tantric astrology. Can I discuss that topic

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > again, here ? But remember, I will not discuss ALL tantric astrology,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > because it is a vast ocean and I have access only to a part of it. i am

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > not omniscient. I will discuss only those things which I know well and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > can substantiate.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Good Wishes,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:53:11 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You said

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > How physical astronomy can prove that a Shani in Vishakha can

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > "torment" Rohini ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I 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

> > >

> > > >

> > & gt%3

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

 

If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed chemistry at

the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at the slightest friction

to then create this firestorm you talked about which ends up the matchstick

burning the very forest it came from :-)

 

How interesting!

 

RR

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

> Dear RR ji,

>

> // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any noise! " //

>

> But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the potential to

create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known civilsation. So

underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

And also burns itself in the process!

Are we talking about annihilation here?

 

Watch out for what? HYPER-GOLS!

 

Neelam

 

 

2009/4/10 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

 

>

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

>

> If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

> chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at the

> slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about which ends

> up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

>

> How interesting!

>

> RR

>

>

> <%40>,

> " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

> >

> > Dear RR ji,

> >

> > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any noise! "

> //

> >

> > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the potential

> to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known civilsation.

> So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one

forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr.. We

should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji will

take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta "

persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to

Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183- 185, knower of six

Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

> >

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison...

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

Basically SKB is buffon so how he could not sit silently

 

We should not expect any knowledge from him apart of monkey's dance

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua wrote:

 

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 4:57 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one

forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr...

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta "

persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to

Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn....iii.183- 185, knower of six

Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji....

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha....

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

> >

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison... .

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear RR ji,

 

Excellent wordplay with display of sagacity from you, as usual.

 

If I may add an auxiliary to your note :

 

The analogy you presented is akin to the son of a father who grows up

and burns his own fathers body on the pyre when he is no more, the same

Father from whom was begot the seed which was the cause for this sons

physical existence .

 

This can be extended endlessly, but I will now pull out, lest invite a

verbal lashing from the Moderator for non-astro sprinklings here.

 

Love and regards,

 

Bhaskar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani

wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

>

> If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at

the slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about

which ends up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

>

> How interesting!

>

> RR

>

> , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear RR ji,

> >

> > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

noise! " //

> >

> > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

potential to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known

civilsation. So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks Rohiniji, for writing such a soothing healing letter. I very much hope

this comforting balm and its healing vapours will give peace to many. Thanks

again. LN

 

--- On Thu, 9/4/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote:

 

 

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, 9 April, 2009, 11:53 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sunil da,

 

Thanks for the very thoughtful post. I shall address just the beginning and

ending portions of it, for now.

 

Indeed, one must not attack willy-nilly, something that has been occuring

increasingly in modern times and more so on Internet. I sometimes in my wild

fantasies wonder if the individuals who fight tooth and nail on internet were to

meet face to face! I would love to be the fly on the wall at such a meeting ;-)

 

That said, while it is true that one must fight for a just cause and for what

one believes is the truth, but at times it is also useful to demonstrate that

discretion is the better part of valour.

 

All that modern stuff aside, it perplexes more than amazes me that in the

puratan purer times of higher principles and values, with such honourable living

standards, people still needed to fight, go to war and to kill! I suppose there

is the concept of dharmayuddha and some of the killing and bloodshed may be

metaphorical and so on but it seems that anabolism must be balanced with

catabolism in a cosmic sense. This is what I love about nature. It is so

intrinsic and so verily jives with life itself, with the human experience

itself. No wonder scientists equate Nature with God. Scientists are trying to

understand Nature, spiritualists are trying to understand and realize God.

Perhaps they are both really climbing up the same mountain with the mountain of

ignorance getting between them and hence they cannot see each other or the

unique perspectives that each has of the very same reality!

 

Now to the simpler matter of the last para. I am sorry if I misled you. I was

just expressing my admiration about scientists like you and particularly

chemists who have the knowledge to potentially understand much of nature because

I have heard that chemistry is at the core of everything, although physics too

being the other pure science. I was lamenting that I wish I had brains enough or

good teachers to be able to learn chemistry. Maybe, in the next lifetime :-)

 

I also find it admirable that chemists such as you have a deep interest in

astrology and spiritual matters. I realize you said that astrology was not your

forte but from knowing quite a few astrologers (of all cloths), it is not the

forte of some of them, either!

 

Warm regards,

 

Rohini

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear Rohini,

>  

> Yes.  Manu, the first law-giver, had prescribed the rules of the war and one

rule among those was that a person must warn his opponent about the intention to

fight (ie. to fight it out, over whatever be the cause, for which fighting may

be considered necessary). A person has to fight only with the opponent only

if the latter is prepared for the fight. One should not attack an unarmed

opponent, even though there is enmity between them.  You might have read in the

Bhagavad Gita that at the end of the first chapter Arjuna laid down his arms.

Then in the beginning of the next (ie.second) chapter he requested Lord Krishna

for guidance and the Lord could impart the lessons of the Bhagavad Gita to

Arjuna, even though it was in the middle of the battle field, simply because

Arjuna was unarmed and Bhishma, the commander of the Kaurava army, was  a

law-abiding person and he  would not allow any attack from the Kaurava side on

the unarmed

> Arjuna. Many scholars, who do not know this, wonder as to how the Bhagavad

Gita could have been delivered in the battle-field.

>  

> Manu gave some more rules for the war. Then just before the Mahabharata war

some additional rules were made, such as that after the battle is over for the

day all would be friends again till the battle was resumed on the next day. In

Mahabharata you will find that after framing these rules they themselves were

surprised that they have made such rules.These rules were strictly observed till

Bhishma was in command and later on however there were many breaches of the

rules.

>  

> One thing stands out from this that the Bharat-vashis of those times believed

that fighting may be necessary over some issues but basically all are friends.

Of course there were some black sheeps like Duryodhana who did not inherently

believe in the rules as he made his own rules and in the end he did not gain

anything by that attitude.

>  

> As regards your second query the Sun is the source of all energy and all

interplay of energy is possible due to the Sun. Curiously it is said that the

number one (numerologically) people are generally more energetic than the other

people, when the Sun rises and they become tired or lethargic towards the end of

the day when the Sun sets. Please let me know if you have observed any such

thing. The Sun is the giver of knowledge too. Yajnavalkya got his Vedic

knowledge from the Sun. Mayasura and even Hanuman were  said to have received

the knowledge of Astrology from the Sun. The Sun spurs all of us to learn things

and to do things while the Moon being the ruler of mind allows us to think and

retrospect. We have to respect the role of both the Sun and the Moon in our

life.

>  

> I do not know if what I wrote would be of help. I was quite curious to know

that you have a Chemistry background too. Can you please let me know more about

you and what are your interests.

>  

> Best wishes,

>  

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>  

>  

>  

>

> --- On Wed, 4/8/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 4:33 PM

>

>

Sunil Da,

>

> From your mouth to God's ears or at least to the Divinity that hides within

all of us -- which is what I believe the so called Life-Force is! When trapped

in a human shell of " maati " , the Divine force forms a living human being. Sadly,

most often the maati/earth takes over.

>

> That said, I was always taken by the statement that I once read that in times

of Mahabharata, enemies -- who were really friends, relatives and Gurubhais etc

-- used to visit enemy camps after sundown without fear! Now, not being versed

in ancient scriptural literature at all, perhaps such was not true and I am

mis-guided. Please correct me if that is the case, since I have addressed you as

Dada.

>

> A peasant like me would wonder, " Is it the Sun that makes humans fight? When

the sun was up, the Mahabharata war was fierce and deadly, but when the Sun went

down -- the war vanished and everyone became friend-relative- gurubhai again!

What Maya! And they call Chandra, the Queen of the Night Mayavini! "

>

> So confusing to an astrologer, indeed!

>

> What is the truth?

>

> Rohini

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rohini,

> >  

> > Thank you for the good words.

> >  

> > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

> >  

> > Best wishes,

> >  

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >  

> >  

> >  

> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sunilda,

> >

> > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

> > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

> >

> > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

> >

> > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

> >

> > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

> >

> > Pranaams

> >

> > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > >

> > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

> > >

> > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and 

in Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity  and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul  isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he

somehow

> > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the

AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship

him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge

of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement. 

> > >

> > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If

anybody is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you

shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At least in the post that I responded to?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Rohiniranjan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear all.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

> > >

> > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha.

> > >

> > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 2)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

> > >

> > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

> > >

> > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

> > >

> > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

> > >

> > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

> > >

> > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

> > >

> > > > have taught Mayasura.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 3)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

> > >

> > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

> > >

> > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

> > >

> > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

> > >

> > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

> > >

> > > > about it with proof.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 4)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

> > >

> > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

> > >

> > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta  without

> > >

> > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

> > >

> > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

> > >

> > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and  there is already a paper

> > >

> > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

> > >

> > > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

> > >

> > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

> > >

> > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

> > >

> > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

> > >

> > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

> > >

> > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

> > >

> > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

> > >

> > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

> > >

> > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

> > >

> > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our  questioning the

> > >

> > > > newness in his work.  He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

> > >

> > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

> > >

> > > > attack on him.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 5)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji says

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

> > >

> > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

> > >

> > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

> > >

> > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

> > >

> > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

> > >

> > > > playing tricks with him.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 6)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

> > >

> > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

> > >

> > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

> > >

> > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore  what he says must be

> > >

> > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

> > >

> > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

> > >

> > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

> > >

> > > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

> > >

> > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

> > >

> > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 7)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

> > >

> > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

> > >

> > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

> > >

> > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

> > >

> > > > given  in his own websites.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 8)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Vinayji questioned as to  what I contributed in astrology. I want to

> > >

> > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

> > >

> > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

> > >

> > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

> > >

> > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

> > >

> > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

> > >

> > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

> > >

> > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

> > >

> > > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

> > >

> > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

> > >

> > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

> > >

> > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

> > >

> > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

> > >

> > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

> > >

> > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

> > >

> > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

> > >

> > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

> > >

> > > > know astrology but  he must accept the human limitations in

> > >

> > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

> > >

> > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

> > >

> > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

> > >

> > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

> > >

> > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

> > >

> > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

> > >

> > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

> > >

> > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

> > >

> > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

> > >

> > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

> > >

> > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

> > >

> > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

> > >

> > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

> > >

> > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters  by misinterpreting the

> > >

> > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology.  Kaulji should channelise his

> > >

> > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

> > >

> > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

> > >

> > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar.   I

> > >

> > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

> > >

> > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

> > >

> > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

> > >

> > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers

as he

> > >

> > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

> > >

> > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

> > >

> > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot

assert that

> > >

> > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

> > >

> > > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

> > >

> > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.

> > >

> > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

> > >

> > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and  presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical

seminars and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this

sort of statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never

lie?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Regards nevertheless,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > >

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > To ALL :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > comparative manner. This cannot be done in an hostile environment

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > deliberately being created by a person (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) who has

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > made no contribution to either science or to astrology (although he

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > writes on other topics, often good pieces) and is attacking me just out

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of misunderstanding, to put it mildly. I was surprised that my paper " A

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > New Approach to Rain Forecasting "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

to+Rain+Forecast in\

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > g) which was accepted by leading scientific institution of India made

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > him believe that I was a cheat ! Why he did not inform IISc (Bangalore)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that I was a cheat ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > To Sunil ji :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You will get astrology from me if you talk astrology (which you never

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > did), but rebuffs if you talk nonsense and level false charges on me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Your uncivil words about me from my days in AIA upto your recent mail

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > convinces me that you have no desire to learn either decency or other

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > things you do not already know. I know your personal details and some of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > your works. I do not like your manner of making unfounded assertions

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > without providing reliable evidences. How one can write " the great poet

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Kalidasa of the 8th century BCE in his drama Vikramorvashia " , without

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > providing some reason of " 8th century BCE " dating ( cf. 'The dotted

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > record and its effect on the Ancient Indian chronology, including the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > antiquity of the Veda and the Bhagavad Gita') !! One has a right to make

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > discoveries, but not without providing reasons. If such a person asks me

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to provide proofs of my statements about topics which are beyond his

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > field of interest, I can only be amused.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Read my previous mails in which I have mentioned some of the older

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > sources of Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. Or ask some professor of any

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sanskrit university teaching the syllabus of Jyotishaachaarya, they will

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > enlighten you. You will never understand difficult texts like

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Siddhaantatattvaviv eka of Kamlaakara Bhatta. The last verse of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhanta says it is " rahasyam brahma-sammitam " . Physical planets

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > are not rahasyam brahma-sammitam , they are perceived by sages and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > lechers alike. In the beginning of Suryasiddhanta, it is said that Lord

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Surya disappeared after talking to Mayaasura. Can the physical Sun do so

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ?? If Suryasiddhanta is telling false and unscientific stories, why

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > blame me for it ? Go and fight with Lord Surya for His false statements.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Mayaasura had to undergo rigorous tapasyaa for seeing Lord Surya, and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > there is no mention of two or even one tola of wine as a part of such a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tapasyaa. Only a tapasvi can see Saurpaksha. Others may see only its

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > results.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > With other members, I have seen you discussing astrology, but with me,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you are under an oath never to discuss astrology and deliberately want

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to get things out of me by abusing me. Now you are falsely calling me a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > liar. I did not call you a liar. You had challended that I lied about

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saptasindhu flowing eastward, and when I reluctantly showed you the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > proof, you started abusing me for " misinterpretation " . What I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > misinterpreted ? I provided merely an exact literal translation of the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > verse and gave no interpretation at all. You got the fact of eastward

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you will use it in your essays,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > without acknowledging me for being the source of this information, and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > instead have already started abusing me after getting this information.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > This is a sign of your worthiness. I do not know your contribution to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > science, although you declare " I am a scientist " ! Having a degree and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > makes one a scientist ? My scientific papers accepted by world renowned

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > institutions made me a liar and a cheat in your eyes !! Have you ever

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > produced any scientific paper accepted by world class institutions ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > In AIA, Mr Chandrahari was calling me a " cheat " and " unscientific " again

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and again, hence I was forced to show my scientific as well as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrological credentials (

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ acc\

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > epted_by_CAOS% 2C_IISc

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Credentials

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Vinay_Jha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

to+Rain+Forecast ing\

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ?t=anon) , after which you started casting doubts over acceptance of my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > paper by CAOS, IISc.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Instead of asking IISc and other institutions about the genuineness of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > evidences I showed, you started expressing unfounded doubts about my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > veracity and started attacking me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Instead of levelling baseless charges against me after viewing my works,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you should have asked me to show those weather forecasts which were

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > approved by NASA and other institutions, and should have asked me to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > explain the methods behind those forecasts. I really wanted to discuss

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the methods and wanted to show proofs. But you discussed my supposedly

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > fake letters and false statements without proving that I was producing

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > fake papers. It shows how genuinely you are concerned about truth and it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > also show how intolerant you are towards the achievements of someone.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Instead of trying to understand the methods, you started attacking me

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > personally. When I started a new thread in AIA named 'Tantric

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Astrology' to explain the ancient methods of Yaamala Tantra used in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mundane astrology, you deliberately diverted the discussion to the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > benefits of wine, knowing well that a person avowed to lifelong

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > brahmacharya would be forced to leave such discussions. You were never

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > serious in any astrological discussion ; astrology is not your field ; I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > wonder why you join astrological forums ! I left AIA due to wastage of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > my time over false accusations and abuses from you and your friends. Now

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you want the same in this forum. Instead of discussing astrological

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > topics, you want to discuss my character without providing any proof of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > what I cheated or where I lied. The fact is opposite : you say two tolas

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of wine maked a man divine, and I believe in the opposite : I subsist on

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > one meal a day, having forsaken salt, spices, oils & c in foods, besides

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > performing a lot of other things to purify myself. Why my way of life

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > gives so much pain to you that you spend hours writing nonsense to me ??

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Do some soul searching and devote your time to " (1) Ancient Indian

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Chronology, (2) Finding the Original Shastu Tantra, (3) finding the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Original bhagavad Gita " , which you once declared to be your fields of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > interest.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Your language is getting from bad to worse. I promised I am not going to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tolerate your misbehaviour, because I am convinced you are avowed to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > disrupt any genuine ASTROLOGICAL topic I may ever discuss. I told you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > again and again that you must discuss astrology here, and not the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > benefits of wine & c or level personal attacks needlessly. I did not want

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to discuss anything with you, because your real intention was disruption

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of all astrological discussion and to harass me so that I leave all

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > forums.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Do not try to quote me falsely or out of context. I have 6749 mails in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > my store to show your falsehood, why you are threatening me of show my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > supposedly false views on Saptasindhu. I am under an oath never to lie,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and I did not marry or go into any service because I did not want to be

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > compelled by circumstances to lie ever in my life. I know neither my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > words nor concrete evidences will never convince you, because you have

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > an incurable negative attitude towards me due to my way of life.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Astrology is the mother of modern science, but astrology has been

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > degraded. It is your disbelief in astrology that even good uses of it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > are doubted by you. By insulting or attacking me , you will never get

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > anyhing worthwhile out of me, even if I give it to you, because the real

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > giver of knowledge is Lord Surya Whose existence you refuse to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > acknowledge.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Please calm down and some to senses. There are murderers, rapists,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > dacoits in the world. Why all your anger is focussed on me ?? Search

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > your own soul. You will find all three sets of Saptasindhus within your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > own Self. Try to understand the original meaning of the word " nadi "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ('river' is a Laukika meaning, find out the original Vedic meaning from

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the root).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Just give one reference from ancient scriptures to prove about your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saurapaksha and drikpaksha. I trust the scriptures more than your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > imaginary outpourings.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 2)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Do you want me to send the copies of my mails and your mails to the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > group to show who was lying on the Saptasindhu issue?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -SKB

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Sat, 4/4/09, Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ... wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ ...

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Saturday, April 4, 2009, 7:14 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunilji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You do not know how difficult it is for me to control my words while I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > answer your mails. Now I must conclude your sole mission is to disrupt

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrological discussions. There are good articles on Sarasvati in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > internet where you can contribute ; this topic has no relation to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology. You are lying that you found the verse yourself , I sent the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > verse to you. Moreover, I never misinterpreted the verse, I gave the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > literal translation while you believe your fancuful meanings to be the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > real translation. there is no mention of stormy conditions in that

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > verse. literal translation and interpretation are different things. The

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > point I made was that Saptasindhu was in the heartland of Aryavarta as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mentioned by Vyaasaji, but you buried that point under a false argument

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > over your stormy conditions merely to poke fun at my supposedly wrong

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > interpretation.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Your next point about Hartley and Burgess is a mere proof of your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ignorance of Suryasiddhanta and of your blind faith on western

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > commentators, as well as of your habit of producing false arguments with

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > a view to prove false things. Suryasiddhantic true Sun and true Moon

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > have great difference with Sun and Moon of physical astronomy, but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhantic tithi has negligible difference with that of physical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astronomy, because tithi is relative difference between Sun and Moon.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhantic synodical lunar month is equal to 29.530587947 days,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > which is very near to modern value. Eclipses are related to synodical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > period, ie, to relative position of Sun and Moon. Hence Hartley found no

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > much difference between timings of Suryasiddhantic eclipses and physical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > eclipses. i have used the term " no much difference " while you use therm

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > " accurately " which is a lie. But even if eclipses have no much

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > difference, absolute position of true Sun or true Moon have great

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > differences, esp when we go into past. This difference increases at

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the rate of 360 degrees in 42000 years. Another source of difference is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > nearly 1.5 degrees of difference in mandaphal of Suryasiddhantic Moon

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and physical (Drikpakshiya) Moon. Third source is difference between the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > length of Suryasiddhantic solar year and Drikpakshiya year (sidereal ;

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tropical year has less difference).

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You can live in your imaginary world of Maayaa believing in physical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and sensory things. It is not my duty to enlighten you. That is why I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > always tried to hold information, and simply answered your false and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > motivated charges on me. If Vyaasaji talks about eclipses, you conclude

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > he must talk about Drikpakshiya and not about Sauarpakshiya eclipses and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > do noy feel any need to substantiate that physical reality is the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ultimate reality. Gita says that persons believing merely in the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > physical are destined to hell. If Lord Krishna could not save such

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > persons, how can I ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > My friend, you will now receive tit-for-tat replies for your foolish

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mails. I will give information, proofs & c only when you come to believe

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that astrological concepts must be proven astrologically and not

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > physically. although I do not deem you fit for astrologiccal discussion,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I am giving you an instance of what is astrological proof.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Make national horoscopes at the time of nirayana mesha samktaantis on

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the basis of Drikpakshiya and Saurapakshiya computations, and compare

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the phalita results of both horoscopes along the principles of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Paraashara. You will find that Saurapakshiya predictions conform to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > actual events perfectly, while Drikpakshiya predictions bear no such

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > relation to reality in an overwhelming majority of cases. I wasted

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > decades on mutual comparison of Drikpakshiya and Saurapakshiya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > horoscopes in mundane and individual horoscopy, but you dismiss

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saurapaksha without any astrological investigation. You have no interest

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > in astrological investigation of astrological entities. Suryasiddhanta

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is an astrological treatise which has no relation to physical astronomy,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > which can be proven from the text itself, but it is better to undertake

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > an unbiased comparison of Drikpakshiya and Saurapakshiya horoscopes to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > arrive at any conclusive finding. But you are too biased to be

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > interested

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > in any astrological investigation and are adamant on wasting my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > precious time. If you agree to test Suryasiddhanta " ASTROLOGICALLY " , I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > will retract all my statements against you and will apologize for using

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > harsh words, but if you are intent upon disrupting astrological

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > discussion with non-astrological BAKAWAAS, I will use harsher words for

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you in future, because an astrological forum should have no place for

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > non-astrological nonsense.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009 2:50:48 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I think you forget things. In AIA you wrote that Saraswati moved from

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > east to west. Then I told you that at Paunta saheb one stream of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saraswati goes to meet Yamuna and it then moves eastward and that is how

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > it is said that there is Triveni Sangam at Prayag. The other stream of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saraswati went westward to be one of the seven rivers (Saptasindhu) .

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > When I asked you the reference as to where you found that Saraswati

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > changed direction fron east to west you did not give and stated that you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > have no time. Later on you sent me a mail personally saying that you are

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > going to write an article and even though the Mahabharata is in front of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you, you will not give me the reference. Then I found the verse in the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Mahabharata and sent you the verse and told you how you mistranslated it

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > . That day when Lord Krishna was going to Hastinapur it was so stormy

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > that the eastward moving Saptasindhu (mind that Saraswati is not sataed

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > here) appeared to move in the reverse

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > direction. I have only told you that the Vedas have mentioned more

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > than one Saptasindhu.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > When I told you that Hartley could find out the date and time of the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > eclipses accurately from the Suryasiddhanta as edited by Burgess you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > just ignored that.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I have no objection if you live with your imaginations as you have not

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > given any reference so far to substantiate what you say. Vedavyasa

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > talked about the eclipses and their effects also and I am sure that he

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > referred to the physical phenomena and these did not occur in your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > imaginary locations.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 4/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, April 3, 2009, 10:30 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil ji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I believe you are a sincere person, that is why I am answering your

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mails. But you are blindly following the teachings of western

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > commentators who distorted traditional jyotisha. What you call " my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > imaginary " Saurpaksha is not my invention ; the concept of two Suns and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > two Moons was present in Vedic and anti-Vedic variants of Indian

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology from prehistoric times, and has continued to modern times. But

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > with the progress of materialism, the case of Saurpaksha has weakened

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and a majority of persons do not want to get it discussed. I have no

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > intention to persuade them, it is futile. If you do not believe in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Saurpaksha, please keep away from me. Phalita Jyotisha is the only proof

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of Saurpaksha, because Saurpakshiya planets cannot be directly

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > perceived, but you never wanted to " test " my assertions through

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > practical analyses of horoscopes made along Drik and Saur methods, which

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is the only proper way to decide the issue.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I already said that my computational ability is based upon mastery of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > mathematical tables like log and antilog tables, which is not a magical

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > or tantric feat. why are you angry at me if I committed the crime of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > learning these tables by rote in my school days ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You are wrong in asserting : " 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. " If you have not

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > read ancient texts, it is not my fault. You called me a liar about

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > eastward flowing Saptasindhu, and I did not try to give you the verse

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > because I wanted you to search that verse through the hint I provided.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > But did not " waste " you time over my false claims. And when I provided

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the verse, you did not beg an apology for you uncivil remarks against

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > me. Read your mails : have you ever used such a language for any other

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > person in youtr life ? I used to read your messages to others in AIA and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > was surprided with the difference. You have singled me out for ridicule.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > The very concept of presiding deity of a planet is your inventiomn. It

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is supported neither by modern science nor by any astrological texts of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > repute.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You say : " Regarding ayanamsha as a Saurpaksha concept also you did

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > not give any reference to back your statement. " Instead, you should

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > provide a reference to back your wrong belief of ayanamsha being a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > concept of physical astronomy. Modern physical astronomy has a concept

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of precession of equinoxes, which was known to ancients. But they never

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > called it ayanamsha. What they called ayanamsha was known as trapidation

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > or libration, which is not a phenomenon of the physical world and was

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > therefore rejected by astronomers after Copernicus. Till then, the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > socalled discovery of Hipparchus was rotting on papyrus.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you refrain from false charges on me and really want proofs, I can

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > show you. But hitherto you have only wasted my time. For the last time,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I request you to test astrological concepts astrologically, or stop

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > sending messages to me. I still believe you are a sincere person, as I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > gather from your messages to others. It is only me who has a special

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > treatment.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you forget the past and stop referring to what you said or what I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > said, things can get alright and you may be able to test the proofs I am

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ready to provide. But if your intention is merely to waste my time over

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > personal feuds so that I leave all forums, I will request you to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > behave like a gentleman and forget me for ever. If you think my views

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > are my inventions which will die with me, you are mistaken. The best

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > works on Saurpaksha have never been translated into any language but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > form a part of syllabus of Jyotisharya in Sanskrit unuiversities. It is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > neither possible nor my duty to teach these obscure ancient texts here

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > in forums. You should enrol in those universities where these

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > texts are taught. But if you want verifiable proofs, I am willing to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > provide. But I am still sorry for your disbelief in my paper being

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > accepted at CAOS, IISc. If I am a liar, how you will ever listen to me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > And without listening properly, how will ever know my

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > views properly ? Hence, either stop all communication, or begin anew

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > forgetting all past and talk on proofs only. Then I will be able to give

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you proofs. But if you continue wasting my time over useless matters,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > including present message, who will write down the proofs you ask me to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > supply ? I have many tasks at hand. I know you have a very low opinion

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > of me. You forget that I tolerated direct abuses by Mr Chandrahari till

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > his last message to me. I tolerated him because I believed him to be an

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > honest intellectual. Sreenadh led me to believe so. Sreenadh requested

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > him to discuss the matters with me amicably without abusing, but failed.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sreenadh sent me works of Mr Chandrahari, so that I could discuss his

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ideas. After reading these works of Mr Chandrahari, i came to learn that

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Mr Chandrahari was rendering a faulty interpretation of Suryasiddhanta

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > and was propagating a false concept of ayanamsha in the name of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhanta. Mr Chandrahari has every right

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > to propound his views, but he has no right to falsely call his views

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhantic. Then I shot back at Mr Chandrahari, challenging him for

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > shaastraartha. As a result, Mr Chandrahari left the field and Sreenadh

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > started abusing and attacking me. Is it shaastraartha ? Who avoided a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > free and fair debate ? Who vitiated thje environment ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > When I tried to avoid this unwanted controversy and started a new

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > topic on tantric astrology, why a discussion on astrology was diverted

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to wine ? Did I start a discussion on the use of wine in astrology ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you really want proofs about foolproof methods of astrology, of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > existence of Saurpaksha, etc, you will have to read my articles on

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tantric astrology. But if you remove " astrology " and discuss only

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > " tantra " , then I have no time for you. You do not know what you are

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > missing, because you have consistently refused to listen, by diverting

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > the issues. In future, please read my messages twice before answering.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > There is no hurry. Do not answer in haste. I do not know you future, but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I am going to live here for 35 years more. Forget that I am a

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > brahmachaari, if you can check you references to wine. If you again

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > start discussing the benefits of wine, I will have to say that it is

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > sinful for me to listen to such talks. It is an astrological forum and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > there is no use of discussing wine in these forums. I am not belittling

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you, I am merely stating my limitations. I belonged to a rich and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > powerful family, and topped in science and later in English literature ,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > but

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > renounced worldly things for the sake of my salvation. I cannot

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > tolerate things which are banned for a lifelong brahmachaari. If you

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > want any discussion at all, you will have to remember my conditions. It

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is my last non-astrological message to you. Either talk astrology, or

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > stop talking to me. I have no time for other things, esp personal feuds,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > in these forums. Presently you are in a fighting mood. Hence, please

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > rest for a few days and when your mood calms down, start discussing

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology, if you want. I have forgiven even obscene abuses (not from

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you) to me in . But if think you never used foul words for me, I am

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > forgiving you for the last time. I will not forgive any attempt to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > divert the discussion to non-astrological issues, even if you eulogize

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > me. I care neither for abuses nor for praises. If you think you abused

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > me or I abused you, please forget the past and start anew.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You main problem is that you want discussions with a software

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > developer without touching his software, due to your prejudices about

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Suryasiddhanta. Ignorance can be cured (you are not ignorant), but there

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > is no cure for prejudice (you are really prejudiced, I am not abusing

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > you, I really believe so). Forget subjective matters, and come to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > astrology objectively, and test objective proofs which I tried in vain

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > to show under the title tantric astrology. Can I discuss that topic

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > again, here ? But remember, I will not discuss ALL tantric astrology,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > because it is a vast ocean and I have access only to a part of it. i am

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > not omniscient. I will discuss only those things which I know well and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > can substantiate.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Good Wishes,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > -VJ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:53:11 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Vinayji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You said

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > How physical astronomy can prove that a Shani in Vishakha can

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > " torment " Rohini ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I 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

> > >

> > > >

> > & gt%3

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

What prevents the kachua from divulging the names of the forums he is referring

to. Kachua ! can you not substantiate your statements? If you think you have to

present something please do so otherwise stop these  hollow statements. That

will be better than your giving judgement on others.

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua wrote:

 

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:57 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one

forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr.. We

should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji will

take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta "

persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to

Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183- 185, knower of six

Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

> >

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

How does Thakur Jagmohan singh prove that he is not a buffoon?

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

wrote:

 

 

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:25 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically SKB is buffon so how he could not sit silently

 

We should not expect any knowledge from him apart of monkey's dance

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ > wrote:

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 4:57 PM

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one

forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr...

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta "

persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to

Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn....iii.183- 185, knower of six

Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji....

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha....

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

> >

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

..

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

Friends, please talk on a topic and maintain decorum.

-VJ

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua

 

Friday, April 10, 2009 10:27:27 PM

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

 

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one forum

forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr.. We

should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji will

take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta "

persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to

Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183- 185, knower of six

Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

> >

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 4/11/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

thakurjagmohansingh

Saturday, April 11, 2009, 2:36 PM

 

Thakurji,,

 

You can tell me why you are upset instead of using unparliamentary words. No

sane person hurls such bad words, as you have done, without explaining why. Are

you a blind supporter of Vinayji or  is there any other reason? You can

elaborate it in the group if you can.

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:06 PM

 

How does Thakur Jagmohan singh prove that he is not a buffoon?

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

wrote:

 

 

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:25 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically SKB is buffon so how he could not sit silently

 

We should not expect any knowledge from him apart of monkey's dance

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ > wrote:

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 4:57 PM

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on

the mails on only and only on one forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji

said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything

alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr...

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge

as he is giving opportunity to let you prove yourself as good and sound

scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were

similarly segregated during such feasts. Mahabharata uses the term

pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " , but in the same sense.

Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym for " apaankta " , hence

" apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is used in MBh together

with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are these " apaankta "

persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is

not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On

the contrary, in Mn....iii.183- 185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be

pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are

pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti.

Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other ancient texts too, and they are never

eulogized in any ancient text I have ever read. Nakshatrajeevees were not

regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as cheats who rob people by

masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with chaandaalas in MBh. The

fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated Nakshatrajeevee as

" astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong translations, and Sunilji

followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are different from astrologer,

the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi " in all ancient texts

including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a

dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger against me. Any

term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no right to impose our

meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts, we must not forget

that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly different from

ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate

Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not satisfactory. Other software

developers also know this problem, that is why they are experimenting with

various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with various values of

ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of astrology and is

merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few

days when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know

he is misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with

Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found that year beginning with April gives best results

as far as long term cyclical patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I

said nothing about months !Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient

ib this field, or is deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly

indicate whether I use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves

superimposed upon each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this

cycle, repetitive pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no

trace of any cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year

Jovian cycle (59.3 solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian

cycle is true only for 50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8

rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8

rashis will destroy this method. Saturn completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60

years. A real scientist should not be so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and

that is the catchword! Most people think and assume that scientists are simply

disorganized, though creative geniuses who forget what or when they ate last or

where they kept their socks (absent-minded professor stereotype!) but little

does the general public realizes how ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to

Chemical Industry. Much later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my

field to Environmental engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy,

Ancient Indian History and in Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal

interest interest in Hindu astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is

really a big subject and in that I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come

to realize the utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its

value better it will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why,

even though I am not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning

astrology without any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know

about Shri Vinay Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He

claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of Suryasiddhanta and he went on

telling about such things, which he could not substantiate. However he was in

for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible fora, the AIA members would not

tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28

PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji....

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha....

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was

speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper

connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know

about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and

therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree

with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what

appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > >

There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > >

change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > >

shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

>

>

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

..

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of

papers in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical

journals of repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and

Technical seminars and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji

with this sort of statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you

would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > >

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere

members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

Kachuaji,

 

Why don't you give the details of what happened in which fora that upsets you so

much? Which shadow bowing I have done and which fora I left? I have not resigned

from any fora uptill now. Kalyanaramanji does not want me in his fora because of

my belief in astrlogy. Kaulji does not want me in his forum as I oppose his

views of Indian astrology. They invited me to their fora and they removed from

their fora. I have no regret for that. Are you upset as I have opposed the views

of Vinayji?

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

 

What prevents the kachua from divulging the names of the forums he is referring

to. Kachua ! can you not substantiate your statements? If you think you have to

present something please do so otherwise stop these  hollow statements. That

will be better than your giving judgement on others.

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua wrote:

 

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:57 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one

forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a

brother of Yami (twin). All traditional grammarians deduced it from the root

//bhraash// which means " to shine " , and has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too.

A brother never shines, but the Sun shines. The original Vedic meaning of

bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " , and " brother " is a later Laukika

meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in Rgveda might be related to //bhr// ,

but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which means husband. A father bears/sustains,

and then husband sustains, not the brother. But the Sun shines as well as

sustains everything alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr.. We

should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji will

take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________

_________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7,

2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say

astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no

derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183-

185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which

proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler

translated Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on

wrong translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees

are different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term

" jyotishi " in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he

may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should devote

his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient predictive

principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I developed,

I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita best suits

the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into Suryasiddhanta, I used

astrological softwares developed by others and then developed astrological

softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did not give accurate

Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not satisfactory. Other software

developers also know this problem, that is why they are experimenting with

various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with various values of

ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of astrology and is

merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit

his own mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon

each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear

Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive

pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and

readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and

to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

>

Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the

utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its value better it

will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am

not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without

any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay

Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old

mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> >

>

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

>

>

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > >

published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got

the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > >

playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal

human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > >

from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough

at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

> >

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is

also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

>

>

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

why are you wasting time of others in your stupid talks without any proof

 

go and learn after that write

 

You have proved nothing till now

 

wasting times of others in hollow talks

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Kachuaji,

>

> Why don't you give the details of what happened in which fora that upsets you

so much? Which shadow bowing I have done and which fora I left? I have not

resigned from any fora uptill now. Kalyanaramanji does not want me in his fora

because of my belief in astrlogy. Kaulji does not want me in his forum as I

oppose his views of Indian astrology. They invited me to their fora and they

removed from their fora. I have no regret for that. Are you upset as I have

opposed the views of Vinayji?

>

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

>

> What prevents the kachua from divulging the names of the forums he is

referring to. Kachua !?can you not?substantiate your statements? If you think

you have to present something please do so otherwise stop these ?hollow

statements. That will be better than your giving judgement on others.

>

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua wrote:

>

>

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:57 AM

>

>

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on?only and only on one

forum?forwarded from other forums.....

> ?

> He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

> ?

> He has nothing to present....

> ?

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

>

> Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

>

> -SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

>

> BROTHERS ???

>

> Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

>

> It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a

> brother of Yami (twin). All traditional grammarians deduced it from the root

//bhraash// which means " to shine " , and has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too.

A brother never shines, but the Sun shines. The original Vedic meaning of

bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " , and " brother " is a later Laukika

meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in Rgveda might be related to //bhr// ,

but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which means husband. A father bears/sustains,

and then husband sustains, not the brother. But the Sun shines as well as

sustains everything alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

>

> the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr..

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

>

> -VJ

>

> ____________ _________

> _________ __

>

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

>

>

>

> Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Dear Shri Vinayji,

>

> Thanks for so good clarifications.

>

> Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

>

> Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

>

> Please continue.

>

> Luv and Regards

>

> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

>

>

> Tuesday, April 7,

> 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong

interpretations of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in

common mailbox, hence I am posting it again :

>

> >>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

>

> According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from

sitting among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to

see good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted

out to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such

feasts. Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's

" apaankta " , but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an

an antonym for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " ,

which is used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But

who are these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say

> astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made

no derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in

Mn...iii.183- 185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana

brahmins, which proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

>

> " pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler

> translated Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on

wrong translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees

are different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term

" jyotishi " in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

>

> MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

>

> Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down

a bit, he

> may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

>

> solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

> time.

>

> When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to

read my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to

understand it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word

from me. I hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded

anger. I tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to

facts, but I failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request

him to drop this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days

when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

>

> with regards,

>

> -VJ <<<<<<<<<<

>

> I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

>

> " A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others

and rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit

> his own mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

>

> My answer is:

>

> What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

>

> Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon

> each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle,

repetitive pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace

of any cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian

cycle (59.3 solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is

true only for 50% and false for the rest 50% ?

>

> Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60

years, 60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over

250 degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala

at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

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

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear

> Rohini,

>

> >

>

> > Thank you for the good words.

>

> >

>

> > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

>

> >

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> >

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> >

>

> > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

> >

>

> > Dear Sunilda,

>

> >

>

> > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

>

> > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

>

> >

>

> > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

>

> >

>

> > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive

> pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and

readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and

to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

>

> >

>

> > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

>

> >

>

> > Pranaams

>

> >

>

> >

> Rohiniranjan

>

> >

>

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

>

> > >

>

> > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

>

> > >

>

> > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the

> utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its value better

it will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I

am not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology

without any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about

Shri Vinay Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

>

> > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the

AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship

him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge

of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

>

> > >

>

> > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If

anybody is interested the old

> mails of the groups are there to refer to.

>

> > >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

>

> > >

>

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you

shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > At least in the post that I responded to?

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Dear all.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

> >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

>

> > >

>

> > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

>

> > >

>

> > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 2)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

>

> > >

>

> > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

>

> > >

>

> > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

>

> > >

>

> > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

>

> >

> >

>

> > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

>

> > >

>

> > > > have taught Mayasura.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 3)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

>

> > >

>

> > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

>

> > >

>

> > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

>

> > >

>

> > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

>

> > >

>

> > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > about it with proof.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 4)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

>

> > >

>

> > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

>

> > >

>

> > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

>

> > >

>

> > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

>

> > >

>

> > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

>

> > >

>

> > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

>

> > >

>

> > > >

> published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

>

> > >

>

> > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

>

> > >

>

> > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

>

> > >

>

> > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

>

> > >

>

> > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

>

> > >

>

> > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

>

> > >

>

> > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

>

> > >

>

> > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

>

> > >

>

> > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

>

> > >

>

> > > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

>

> > >

>

> > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

>

> > >

>

> > > > attack on him.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 5)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji says

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > You got

> the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

>

> > >

>

> > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

>

> > >

>

> > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

>

> > >

>

> > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

>

> > >

>

> > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

>

> > >

>

> > > >

> playing tricks with him.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 6)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

>

> > >

>

> > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

>

> > >

>

> > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

>

> > >

>

> > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

>

> > >

>

> > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

>

> > >

>

> > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

>

> > >

>

> > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

>

> > >

>

> > > > normal

> human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

>

> > >

>

> > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

>

> > >

>

> > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 7)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

>

> > >

>

> > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

>

> > >

>

> > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

>

> > >

>

> > > > given in his own websites.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > 8)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

>

> > >

>

> > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

>

> > >

>

> > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

>

> > >

>

> > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

>

> > >

>

> > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

>

> > >

>

> > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

>

> > >

>

> > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

>

> > >

>

> > > >

> from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

>

> > >

>

> > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

>

> > >

>

> > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

>

> > >

>

> > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

>

> > >

>

> > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

>

> > >

>

> > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

>

> > >

>

> > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

>

> > >

>

> > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

>

> > >

>

> > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

>

> > >

>

> > > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

>

> > >

>

> > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

>

> > >

>

> > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

>

> > >

>

> > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

>

> > >

>

> > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

>

> > >

>

> > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

>

> > >

>

> > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

>

> > >

>

> > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

>

> > >

>

> > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

>

> > >

>

> > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

>

> > >

>

> > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

>

> > >

>

> > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

>

> > >

>

> > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

>

> > >

>

> > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

>

> > >

>

> > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

>

> > >

>

> > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

>

> > >

>

> > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough

> at

>

> > >

>

> > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

>

> > >

>

> > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers

as he

>

> > >

>

> > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

>

> > >

>

> > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

>

> > >

>

> > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot

assert that

>

> > >

>

> > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

>

> > >

>

> > > > so far and it is

> also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison..

..

>

> > >

>

> > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

>

> > >

>

> > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Regards nevertheless,

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> > >

>

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > To ALL :

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> >

> >

>

> > > > comparati

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jhaji, you are talking of decorum,he and his party didnt bother about the same

 

let him realize others self esteem also

 

you type ppl never take opportnity to finish this type bastard

 

he will never treat you and kaul and others like this

 

always remember this

 

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Friends, please talk on a topic and maintain decorum.

> -VJ

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009 10:27:27 PM

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one forum

forwarded from other forums.....

>

> He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

>

> He has nothing to present....

>

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

>

> Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

>

> -SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

>

> BROTHERS ???

>

> Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

>

> It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

>

> the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr..

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

>

> -VJ

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

>

>

>

> Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Dear Shri Vinayji,

>

> Thanks for so good clarifications.

>

> Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

>

> Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

>

> Please continue.

>

> Luv and Regards

>

> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

>

>

> Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong

interpretations of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in

common mailbox, hence I am posting it again :

>

> >>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

>

> According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from

sitting among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to

see good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted

out to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such

feasts. Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's

" apaankta " , but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an

an antonym for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " ,

which is used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But

who are these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were

" apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory

reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183- 185, knower

of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

>

> " pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

>

> MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

>

> Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down

a bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person

should devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

>

> solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

>

> When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to

read my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to

understand it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word

from me. I hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded

anger. I tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to

facts, but I failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request

him to drop this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days

when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

>

> with regards,

>

> -VJ <<<<<<<<<<

>

> I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

>

> " A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others

and rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own

mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

>

> My answer is:

>

> What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

>

> Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

>

> Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60

years, 60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over

250 degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala

at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

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

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Rohini,

>

> >

>

> > Thank you for the good words.

>

> >

>

> > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

>

> >

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> >

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> >

>

> > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Sunilda,

>

> >

>

> > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

>

> > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

>

> >

>

> > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

>

> >

>

> > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

>

> >

>

> > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

>

> >

>

> > Pranaams

>

> >

>

> > Rohiniranjan

>

> >

>

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

>

> > >

>

> > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

>

> > >

>

> > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

>

> > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the

AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship

him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge

of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

>

> > >

>

> > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If

anybody is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

>

> > >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you

shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > At least in the post that I responded to?

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Dear all.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

>

> > >

>

> > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

>

> > >

>

> > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 2)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

>

> > >

>

> > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

>

> > >

>

> > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

>

> > >

>

> > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

>

> > >

>

> > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

>

> > >

>

> > > > have taught Mayasura.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 3)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

>

> > >

>

> > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

>

> > >

>

> > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

>

> > >

>

> > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

>

> > >

>

> > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

>

> > >

>

> > > > about it with proof.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 4)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

>

> > >

>

> > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

>

> > >

>

> > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

>

> > >

>

> > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

>

> > >

>

> > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

>

> > >

>

> > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

>

> > >

>

> > > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

>

> > >

>

> > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

>

> > >

>

> > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

>

> > >

>

> > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

>

> > >

>

> > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

>

> > >

>

> > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

>

> > >

>

> > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

>

> > >

>

> > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

>

> > >

>

> > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

>

> > >

>

> > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

>

> > >

>

> > > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

>

> > >

>

> > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

>

> > >

>

> > > > attack on him.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 5)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji says

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

>

> > >

>

> > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

>

> > >

>

> > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

>

> > >

>

> > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

>

> > >

>

> > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

>

> > >

>

> > > > playing tricks with him.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 6)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

>

> > >

>

> > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

>

> > >

>

> > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

>

> > >

>

> > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

>

> > >

>

> > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

>

> > >

>

> > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

>

> > >

>

> > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

>

> > >

>

> > > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

>

> > >

>

> > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

>

> > >

>

> > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 7)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

>

> > >

>

> > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

>

> > >

>

> > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

>

> > >

>

> > > > given in his own websites.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 8)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

>

> > >

>

> > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

>

> > >

>

> > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

>

> > >

>

> > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

>

> > >

>

> > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

>

> > >

>

> > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

>

> > >

>

> > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

>

> > >

>

> > > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

>

> > >

>

> > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

>

> > >

>

> > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

>

> > >

>

> > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

>

> > >

>

> > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

>

> > >

>

> > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

>

> > >

>

> > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

>

> > >

>

> > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

>

> > >

>

> > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

>

> > >

>

> > > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

>

> > >

>

> > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

>

> > >

>

> > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

>

> > >

>

> > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

>

> > >

>

> > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

>

> > >

>

> > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

>

> > >

>

> > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

>

> > >

>

> > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

>

> > >

>

> > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

>

> > >

>

> > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

>

> > >

>

> > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

>

> > >

>

> > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

>

> > >

>

> > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

>

> > >

>

> > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

>

> > >

>

> > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

>

> > >

>

> > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

>

> > >

>

> > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

>

> > >

>

> > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

>

> > >

>

> > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

>

> > >

>

> > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

>

> > >

>

> > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers

as he

>

> > >

>

> > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

>

> > >

>

> > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

>

> > >

>

> > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot

assert that

>

> > >

>

> > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

>

> > >

>

> > > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison..

..

>

> > >

>

> > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

>

> > >

>

> > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Regards nevertheless,

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> > >

>

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > To ALL :

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > comparati

>

>

[Guest guest]

What wise talk did you give yourself in this forum with what proof so far?

 

What have you proved yourself so far? Can you name any?

 

You are wasting time of others with unsubstantiated statements?

 

If you have respect for your good parents use the name they gave you and don't

hesitate to declare that. Why remain behind a purdah and why try

behind-the-purdah boxing?

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 4/11/09, indian_kachua <indian_kachua wrote:

 

indian_kachua <indian_kachua

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Saturday, April 11, 2009, 9:32 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why are you wasting time of others in your stupid talks without any proof

 

 

 

go and learn after that write

 

 

 

You have proved nothing till now

 

 

 

wasting times of others in hollow talks

 

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Kachuaji,

 

>

 

> Why don't you give the details of what happened in which fora that upsets you

so much? Which shadow bowing I have done and which fora I left? I have not

resigned from any fora uptill now. Kalyanaramanji does not want me in his fora

because of my belief in astrlogy. Kaulji does not want me in his forum as I

oppose his views of Indian astrology. They invited me to their fora and they

removed from their fora. I have no regret for that. Are you upset as I have

opposed the views of Vinayji?

 

>

 

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

 

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

 

>

 

> What prevents the kachua from divulging the names of the forums he is

referring to. Kachua !?can you not?substantiate your statements? If you think

you have to present something please do so otherwise stop these ?hollow

statements. That will be better than your giving judgement on others.

 

>

 

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ ...>

 

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:57 AM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on?only and only on one

forum?forwarded from other forums.....

 

> ?

 

> He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

> ?

 

> He has nothing to present....

 

> ?

 

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

>

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

>

 

> Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

>

 

> -SKB

 

>

 

> --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

>

 

> BROTHERS ???

 

>

 

> Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

>

 

> It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a

 

> brother of Yami (twin). All traditional grammarians deduced it from the root

//bhraash// which means " to shine " , and has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too.

A brother never shines, but the Sun shines. The original Vedic meaning of

bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " , and " brother " is a later Laukika

meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in Rgveda might be related to //bhr// ,

but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which means husband. A father bears/sustains,

and then husband sustains, not the brother. But the Sun shines as well as

sustains everything alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

>

 

> the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr..

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

> ____________ _________

 

> _________ __

 

>

 

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

>

 

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

>

 

> Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

>

 

> Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

>

 

> Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

>

 

> Please continue.

 

>

 

> Luv and Regards

 

>

 

> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

>

 

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Tuesday, April 7,

 

> 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

> At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong

interpretations of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in

common mailbox, hence I am posting it again :

 

>

 

> >>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

>

 

> According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from

sitting among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to

see good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted

out to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such

feasts. Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's

" apaankta " , but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an

an antonym for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " ,

which is used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But

who are these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say

 

> astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made

no derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in

Mn...iii.183- 185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana

brahmins, which proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

>

 

> " pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler

 

> translated Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on

wrong translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees

are different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term

" jyotishi " in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

 

>

 

> MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

 

>

 

> Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down

a bit, he

 

> may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

 

>

 

> solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

 

> time.

 

>

 

> When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to

read my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to

understand it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word

from me. I hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded

anger. I tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to

facts, but I failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request

him to drop this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days

when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

>

 

> with regards,

 

>

 

> -VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

>

 

> I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

>

 

> " A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others

and rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit

 

> his own mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

>

 

> My answer is:

 

>

 

> What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

>

 

> Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon

 

> each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle,

repetitive pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace

of any cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian

cycle (59.3 solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is

true only for 50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

>

 

> Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60

years, 60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over

250 degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala

at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

 

>

 

> -VJ

 

>

 

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

 

>

 

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

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Dear

 

> Rohini,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Best wishes,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

>

 

> > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive

 

> pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and

readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and

to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > Pranaams

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> >

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> >

 

>

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the

 

> utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its value better

it will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I

am not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology

without any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about

Shri Vinay Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

>

 

> > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the

AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship

him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge

of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If

anybody is interested the old

 

> mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Regards,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

>

 

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you

shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Dear all.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

> >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 1)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 2)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

>

 

> >

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > have taught Mayasura.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 3)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > about it with proof.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 4)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

> published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > attack on him.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 5)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji says

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Quote

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > You got

 

> the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Unquote

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

> playing tricks with him.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 6)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > normal

 

> human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > 7)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > given in his own websites.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > 8)

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

> from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough

 

> at

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers

as he

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot

assert that

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > so far and it is

 

> also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison..

..

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Regards nevertheless,

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > To ALL :

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

>

 

> > >

 

>

 

> > > >

 

>

 

> >

 

> >

 

>

 

> > > > comparati

 

>

 

>

[Guest guest]

To All :

 

Sunil Bhattacharjy ji is wrongly supposing that I have a team of blind

supporters. I do not even know those persons whom Sunil Bhattacharjy ji is

charging of blindly supporting me.

 

Sunil Bhattacharjy ji should see that my attempts to read ancient texts in

proper contexts and not blindly following Eurocentric pseudo-experts is being

liked by some members here too. In my invited lecture at Kalidasa Academy (held

by Vikrama University of Ujjain) last year on 13 April, I had explained in

detail the really scientific method of reconstruction of past stages of

languages in comparative Indo-European linguistics, on which I worked for 12

years. In that lecture, I had spoken on grammatical and semantic derivations of

terms like Bhraatr and Agni, and showed that when Vedic language was being

formed Laukika meanings were not in vogue, which means Veda preceded Loka.

Followers of Chaarvaaka and Maxmuller may disagree, but why the views of

traditional grammarians like Panini, astrologers like Parashara, etc should be

choked by means of abuses to me? I am not being abused ( " worse than chaandala " ),

it is traditional wisdom of Panini, Parashara,

Suryasiddhanta, etc which is under undemocratic and illogical attack.

 

-VJ

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Sunday, April 12, 2009 3:08:14 AM

Fw: Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 4/11/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

thakurjagmohansingh @

Saturday, April 11, 2009, 2:36 PM

 

Thakurji,,

 

You can tell me why you are upset instead of using unparliamentary words. No

sane person hurls such bad words, as you have done, without explaining why. Are

you a blind supporter of Vinayji or is there any other reason? You can

elaborate it in the group if you can.

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:06 PM

 

How does Thakur Jagmohan singh prove that he is not a buffoon?

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh @>

wrote:

 

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 10:25 AM

 

Basically SKB is buffon so how he could not sit silently

 

We should not expect any knowledge from him apart of monkey's dance

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ > wrote:

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 4:57 PM

 

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on

the mails on only and only on one forum forwarded from other forums.....

 

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

 

He has nothing to present....

 

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

 

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

 

BROTHERS ???

 

Sunil ji

said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

 

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything

alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

 

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr...

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

 

 

 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

 

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Dear Shri Vinayji,

 

Thanks for so good clarifications.

 

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

 

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge

as he is giving opportunity to let you prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

 

Please continue.

 

Luv and Regards

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

 

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

 

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were

similarly segregated during such feasts. Mahabharata uses the term

pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " , but in the same sense.

Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym for " apaankta " , hence

" apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is used in MBh together

with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are these " apaankta "

persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is

not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On

the contrary, in Mn....iii.183- 185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be

pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

 

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are

pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti.

Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other ancient texts too, and they are never

eulogized in any ancient text I have ever read. Nakshatrajeevees were not

regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as cheats who rob people by

masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with chaandaalas in MBh. The

fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated Nakshatrajeevee as

" astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong translations, and Sunilji

followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are different from astrologer,

the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi " in all ancient texts

including Manusmriti and

 

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a

dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger against me. Any term

must be defined in its proper context only. We have no right to impose our

meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts, we must not forget

that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly different from

ours.

 

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate

Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not satisfactory. Other software

developers also know this problem, that is why they are experimenting with

various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with various values of

ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of astrology and is

merely interested in

 

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

 

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few

days when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know

he is misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

 

with regards,

 

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

 

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

 

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own mistake. A

liar is worse than a chandala. "

 

My answer is:

 

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

 

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with

Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found that year beginning with April gives best results

as far as long term cyclical patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I

said nothing about months !Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient

ib this field, or is deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly

indicate whether I use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves

superimposed upon each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this

cycle, repetitive pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no

trace of any cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year

Jovian cycle (59.3 solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian

cycle is true only for 50% and false for the rest 50% ?

 

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8

rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8

rashis will destroy this method. Saturn completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60

years. A real scientist should not be so crude.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

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

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> Dear Rohini,

 

>

 

> Thank you for the good words.

 

>

 

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

 

>

 

> Best wishes,

 

>

 

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

>

 

>

 

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

>

 

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear Sunilda,

 

>

 

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

 

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

 

>

 

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and

that is the catchword! Most people think and assume that scientists are simply

disorganized, though creative geniuses who forget what or when they ate last or

where they kept their socks (absent-minded professor stereotype!) but little

does the general public realizes how ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

 

>

 

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive pursuit

such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and readily

obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and to get

to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

 

>

 

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

 

>

 

> Pranaams

 

>

 

> Rohiniranjan

 

>

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> >

 

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

 

> >

 

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to

Chemical Industry. Much later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my

field to Environmental engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy,

Ancient Indian History and in Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal

interest interest in Hindu astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is

really a big subject and in that I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come

to realize the utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its

value better it will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why,

even though I am not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning

astrology without any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know

about Shri Vinay Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

 

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He

claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of Suryasiddhanta and he went on

telling about such things, which he could not substantiate. However he was in

for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible fora, the AIA members would not

tolerate any baseless statement.

 

> >

 

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

 

> >

 

> > Regards,

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

 

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28

PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji....

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

 

> > Rohiniranjan

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Dear all.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 1)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

 

> >

 

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha....

 

> >

 

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 2)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

 

> >

 

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

 

> >

 

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

 

> >

 

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

 

> >

 

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

 

> >

 

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

 

> >

 

> > > have taught Mayasura.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 3)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

 

> >

 

> > > that I was

speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

 

> >

 

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

 

> >

 

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

 

> >

 

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

 

> >

 

> > > about it with proof.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 4)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

 

> >

 

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

 

> >

 

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

 

> >

 

> > > establishing any proper

connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

 

> >

 

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

 

> >

 

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

 

> >

 

> > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

 

> >

 

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

 

> >

 

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

 

> >

 

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

 

> >

 

> > > worth his salt may know

about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

 

> >

 

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

 

> >

 

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

 

> >

 

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

 

> >

 

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

 

> >

 

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

 

> >

 

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

 

> >

 

> > > attack on him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 5)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji says

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Quote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

 

> >

 

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

 

> >

 

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

 

> >

 

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

 

> >

 

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

 

> >

 

> > > playing tricks with him.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 6)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

 

> >

 

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

 

> >

 

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

 

> >

 

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and

therefore what he says must be

 

> >

 

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

 

> >

 

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

 

> >

 

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

 

> >

 

> > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

 

> >

 

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

 

> >

 

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 7)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

 

> >

 

> > > I agree

with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

 

> >

 

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

 

> >

 

> > > given in his own websites.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > 8)

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

 

> >

 

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

 

> >

 

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

 

> >

 

> > > question anything what

appears to me as mistranslation and

 

> >

 

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

 

> >

 

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

 

> >

 

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

 

> >

 

> > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

 

> >

 

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

 

> >

 

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

 

> >

 

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

 

> >

 

> > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

 

> >

 

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

 

> >

 

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

 

> >

 

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

 

> >

 

> > >

There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

 

> >

 

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

 

> >

 

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

 

> >

 

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

 

> >

 

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

 

> >

 

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

 

> >

 

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

 

> >

 

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

 

> >

 

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

 

> >

 

> > >

change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

 

> >

 

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

 

> >

 

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

 

> >

 

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

 

> >

 

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

 

> >

 

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

 

> >

 

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

 

> >

 

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

 

> >

 

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

 

> >

 

> > >

shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

 

> >

 

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

 

> >

 

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

 

> >

 

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

 

> >

 

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

 

> >

 

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

 

> >

 

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

 

>

>

 

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

 

> >

 

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

 

> >

 

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

 

> >

 

> > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

 

> >

 

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

..

 

> >

 

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

 

> >

 

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of

papers in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical

journals of repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and

Technical seminars and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji

with this sort of statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you

would never lie?

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Regards nevertheless,

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

 

> >

 

> > >

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > To ALL :

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere

members, I must add here

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

 

> >

 

> > >

 

> >

 

> > > comparati

 

 

[Guest guest]

All your words are true. Sunil ji became a member in JG merely to abuse me away,

as he and his friends did in AIA. I do not know why they hate me so much, I

never abused them.

 

Sunil ji propounded a theory of Kalidasa in 8th century BCE. I pointed out that

Kalidasa'a drama Maalvikaa-Agnimitra is about Agnumitra Sunga, the son of

Pushyamitra Sunga who unseated last Mauryan Brihdratha in 185 BC. Hence,

Kalidasa cannot precede Agnimitra.

 

Similarly, I pointed at Buhler's error in translating Nakshatrajeevi as

astrologer, because Nakshatrajeevi was a derogatory term while Jyotishi was a

revered term in the same text Manusmriti. I was answered with abuses(I was

called " worse than a chaandaala " ). This is not discussion. I want discussion

with decorum, which is impossible with some members.

 

-VJ

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

, " panther.panther " <panther.panther

wrote:

>

> Jhaji, you are talking of decorum,he and his party didnt bother about the same

>

> let him realize others self esteem also

>

> you type ppl never take opportnity to finish this type bastard

>

> he will never treat you and kaul and others like this

>

> always remember this

>

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > Friends, please talk on a topic and maintain decorum.

> > -VJ

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@>

> >

> > Friday, April 10, 2009 10:27:27 PM

> > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one forum

forwarded from other forums.....

> >

> > He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

> >

> > He has nothing to present....

> >

> > --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

wrote:

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

> >

> > Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

> >

> > -SKB

> >

> > --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

> >

> > BROTHERS ???

> >

> > Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

> >

> > It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for

the fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in

entire Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for

the Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun

named Vaivasvata Yama who was also a brother of Yami (twin). All traditional

grammarians deduced it from the root //bhraash// which means " to shine " , and

has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too. A brother never shines, but the Sun

shines. The original Vedic meaning of bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " ,

and " brother " is a later Laukika meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in

Rgveda might be related to //bhr// , but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which

means husband. A father bears/sustains, and then husband sustains, not the

brother. But the Sun shines as well as sustains everything alive. Hence, the

Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

> >

> > the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a

bhraatr.. We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope

Sunil ji will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the

original verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

> >

> >

> >

> > Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

> >

> > Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > Dear Shri Vinayji,

> >

> > Thanks for so good clarifications.

> >

> > Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

> >

> > Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

> >

> > Please continue.

> >

> > Luv and Regards

> >

> > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

> >

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> >

> >

> > Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:34 PM

> >

> > At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong

interpretations of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in

common mailbox, hence I am posting it again :

> >

> > >>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

> >

> > According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from

sitting among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to

see good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted

out to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such

feasts. Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's

" apaankta " , but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an

an antonym for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " ,

which is used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But

who are these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say astrologers were

" apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no derogatory

reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183- 185, knower

of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which proves that

Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

> >

> > " pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler translated

Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on wrong

translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees are

different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term " jyotishi "

in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

> >

> > MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please

read the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read

properly. He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on

61-year cycle. I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by

uncontrolled anger against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context

only. We have no right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing

with ancient texts, we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts

and milieus vastly different from ours.

> >

> > Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms

down a bit, he may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person

should devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

> >

> > solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage

of time.

> >

> > When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to

read my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to

understand it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word

from me. I hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded

anger. I tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to

facts, but I failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request

him to drop this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days

when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

> >

> > with regards,

> >

> > -VJ <<<<<<<<<<

> >

> > I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

> >

> > " A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others

and rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit his own

mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

> >

> > My answer is:

> >

> > What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a

refuge in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth

will be decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which

Sunilji does not understand.

> >

> > Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not

mentioned the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and

my experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and

found that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term

cyclical patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about

months !Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or

is deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon each

other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

> >

> > Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60

years, 60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over

250 degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala

at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

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

> >

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

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Rohini,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Thank you for the good words.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict

does occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days

too. We have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any

wrong-doing. Then leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all

knowledge will spread and people will be benefitted.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Best wishes,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> >

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Sunilda,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

> >

> > > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive

pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and

readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and

to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Pranaams

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > >

> >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in

the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the utility of Astrlogy

and see that sooner the world realises its value better it will be. Astrology ia

a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am not an expert in

astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without any basis like

Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay Jha first time

in the AIA forum and he somehow

> >

> > > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the

AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship

him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge

of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If

anybody is interested the old mails of the groups are there to refer to.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Regards,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> >

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you

shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy

and why should you think he should ours as well?

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > At least in the post that I responded to?

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Dear all.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 1)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of

Jyotisha...

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 2)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to

Kunti

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could

also

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > have taught Mayasura.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 3)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how

the

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > about it with proof.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 4)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4,

25

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > attack on him.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 5)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji says

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Quote

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > You got the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing

me after getting this information.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Unquote

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > playing tricks with him.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 6)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by

this

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > normal human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 7)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > given in his own websites.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > 8)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge

of

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually

that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I

have

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology.

Jyotish

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough at

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his

admirers as he

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am

just

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot

assert that

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > so far and it is also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such

comparison.. .

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not

made any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of

papers in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical

journals of repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and

Technical seminars and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji

with this sort of statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you

would never lie?

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Regards nevertheless,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > To ALL :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add

here

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > > comparati

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Actually there is an astrological angle to what may to a casual reader of these

sharings, appear as casual meanderings!

 

The matchstick is the finer varga, while the forest is the Kshetra. The

matchstick may be 'tulya' to its origin, but would always contain the 'genes' of

the Kshetra, though not always expressed!

 

There -- hopefully, both of us are safe from the wrath of the kind moderator

(You may want to call me spineless ;-) but I do have such fear of moderators!!)

 

RR

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

>

> Dear RR ji,

>

> Excellent wordplay with display of sagacity from you, as usual.

>

> If I may add an auxiliary to your note :

>

> The analogy you presented is akin to the son of a father who grows up

> and burns his own fathers body on the pyre when he is no more, the same

> Father from whom was begot the seed which was the cause for this sons

> physical existence .

>

> This can be extended endlessly, but I will now pull out, lest invite a

> verbal lashing from the Moderator for non-astro sprinklings here.

>

> Love and regards,

>

> Bhaskar

>

>

>

>

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

> chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at

> the slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about

> which ends up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

> >

> > How interesting!

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear RR ji,

> > >

> > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

> noise! " //

> > >

> > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

> potential to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known

> civilsation. So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No Neelam ji, just the 'wrong' chemistry landing on and in the matchhead :-)

 

When I wrote about the matchstick and forest, I was specifically thinking of the

sad reality of 'suicide' bombers. But then, when has humanity thought much of

human life and its values. Wars have been with us from times Scriptural!

 

RR

 

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote:

>

> And also burns itself in the process!

> Are we talking about annihilation here?

>

> Watch out for what? HYPER-GOLS!

>

> Neelam

>

>

> 2009/4/10 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

>

> >

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

> > chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at the

> > slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about which ends

> > up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

> >

> > How interesting!

> >

> > RR

> >

> >

> > <%40>,

> > " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear RR ji,

> > >

> > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any noise! "

> > //

> > >

> > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the potential

> > to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known civilsation.

> > So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri RR ji,

 

About calling you spineless ( Good that you are updated and my postings

about you are forwarded to You), I would do that when you mantain a

servile attitude towards the JR Moderator. At the same time I have also

seen the guts in you, which was not displayed by anybody else, when the

JR Moderator wanted to put my Chart and discuss about that (Though he

does not know abc of astrology) you gave a befitting reply (That You

would open up the Charts of every astrologer on these Forums)and I was

the first to notice and complement on same, throughout. Please do not

ignore this. I have also mentioned good words about you to Shri Prafulla

Gang ji who is your ardent admirerer, and so have I become , after

noticing your firm mails, but when you stray in between from the

ecliptic, I comment, otherwise I do not, and appreciate you and your

writings always.

 

regards,

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani

wrote:

>

> Actually there is an astrological angle to what may to a casual reader

of these sharings, appear as casual meanderings!

>

> The matchstick is the finer varga, while the forest is the Kshetra.

The matchstick may be 'tulya' to its origin, but would always contain

the 'genes' of the Kshetra, though not always expressed!

>

> There -- hopefully, both of us are safe from the wrath of the kind

moderator (You may want to call me spineless ;-) but I do have such fear

of moderators!!)

>

> RR

>

> , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear RR ji,

> >

> > Excellent wordplay with display of sagacity from you, as usual.

> >

> > If I may add an auxiliary to your note :

> >

> > The analogy you presented is akin to the son of a father who grows

up

> > and burns his own fathers body on the pyre when he is no more, the

same

> > Father from whom was begot the seed which was the cause for this

sons

> > physical existence .

> >

> > This can be extended endlessly, but I will now pull out, lest invite

a

> > verbal lashing from the Moderator for non-astro sprinklings here.

> >

> > Love and regards,

> >

> > Bhaskar

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > >

> > > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily

inflammed

> > chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible,

at

> > the slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked

about

> > which ends up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from

:-)

> > >

> > > How interesting!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear RR ji,

> > > >

> > > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

> > noise! " //

> > > >

> > > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

> > potential to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby

known

> > civilsation. So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Strangely, that is what I thought too, a terrorist (of any kind) including

the suicide bomber!

One from the populace, but charged with the wrong chemicals/chemistry.

 

Which varga do you think should have gone wrong? Chaturthamsha?

 

Regards

Neelam

 

 

 

2009/4/12 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

 

>

>

> No Neelam ji, just the 'wrong' chemistry landing on and in the matchhead

> :-)

>

> When I wrote about the matchstick and forest, I was specifically thinking

> of the sad reality of 'suicide' bombers. But then, when has humanity thought

> much of human life and its values. Wars have been with us from times

> Scriptural!

>

> RR

>

>

> <%40>,

> neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote:

> >

> > And also burns itself in the process!

> > Are we talking about annihilation here?

> >

> > Watch out for what? HYPER-GOLS!

> >

> > Neelam

> >

> >

> > 2009/4/10 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > >

> > > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

> > > chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at

> the

> > > slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about which

> ends

> > > up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

> > >

> > > How interesting!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > >

> > >

<%40><%

> 40>,

> > > " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear RR ji,

> > > >

> > > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

> noise! "

> > > //

> > > >

> > > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

> potential

> > > to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known

> civilsation.

> > > So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar bhai,

 

Truly -- I do not know or recall what you are talking about! No one ever asked

me about your personal horoscope which I may have somewhere (I probably have

many) but if someone asks me, I would not even know where to look or even want

to look for as a devoted jyotishi you would know that a horoscope is like a

diary, personal and private. I do and to the best of my belief have never gone

back on that position!

 

And yes B. ji -- I have always spoken strongly against anyone using personal

knowledge to bash and trash anyone, or just from fleeting personal impressions

or so on, without substance whether posted directly or furtively when someone

thought that the target was not around, any more ;-)

 

Rohiniranjan

 

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

>

> Dear Shri RR ji,

>

> About calling you spineless ( Good that you are updated and my postings

> about you are forwarded to You), I would do that when you mantain a

> servile attitude towards the JR Moderator. At the same time I have also

> seen the guts in you, which was not displayed by anybody else, when the

> JR Moderator wanted to put my Chart and discuss about that (Though he

> does not know abc of astrology) you gave a befitting reply (That You

> would open up the Charts of every astrologer on these Forums)and I was

> the first to notice and complement on same, throughout. Please do not

> ignore this. I have also mentioned good words about you to Shri Prafulla

> Gang ji who is your ardent admirerer, and so have I become , after

> noticing your firm mails, but when you stray in between from the

> ecliptic, I comment, otherwise I do not, and appreciate you and your

> writings always.

>

> regards,

>

> Bhaskar.

>

>

, " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Actually there is an astrological angle to what may to a casual reader

> of these sharings, appear as casual meanderings!

> >

> > The matchstick is the finer varga, while the forest is the Kshetra.

> The matchstick may be 'tulya' to its origin, but would always contain

> the 'genes' of the Kshetra, though not always expressed!

> >

> > There -- hopefully, both of us are safe from the wrath of the kind

> moderator (You may want to call me spineless ;-) but I do have such fear

> of moderators!!)

> >

> > RR

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear RR ji,

> > >

> > > Excellent wordplay with display of sagacity from you, as usual.

> > >

> > > If I may add an auxiliary to your note :

> > >

> > > The analogy you presented is akin to the son of a father who grows

> up

> > > and burns his own fathers body on the pyre when he is no more, the

> same

> > > Father from whom was begot the seed which was the cause for this

> sons

> > > physical existence .

> > >

> > > This can be extended endlessly, but I will now pull out, lest invite

> a

> > > verbal lashing from the Moderator for non-astro sprinklings here.

> > >

> > > Love and regards,

> > >

> > > Bhaskar

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > > >

> > > > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily

> inflammed

> > > chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible,

> at

> > > the slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked

> about

> > > which ends up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from

> :-)

> > > >

> > > > How interesting!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear RR ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

> > > noise! " //

> > > > >

> > > > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

> > > potential to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby

> known

> > > civilsation. So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelam ji,

 

If I *knew* the answer to such a crucial problem that runs rampant across our

human society, would I be hanging out here where all devotees convene ;-)

 

Seriously, though, I have not been approached by any jihaadi or suicide bomber

or a fanatic of that caliber or one that I recall. I am just being honest and do

not just conjure up an answer or yoga/combination, just for the heck of it ;-)

 

But if you ask around, I bet you will get an answer and perhaps many...

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote:

>

> Strangely, that is what I thought too, a terrorist (of any kind) including

> the suicide bomber!

> One from the populace, but charged with the wrong chemicals/chemistry.

>

> Which varga do you think should have gone wrong? Chaturthamsha?

>

> Regards

> Neelam

>

>

>

> 2009/4/12 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

>

> >

> >

> > No Neelam ji, just the 'wrong' chemistry landing on and in the matchhead

> > :-)

> >

> > When I wrote about the matchstick and forest, I was specifically thinking

> > of the sad reality of 'suicide' bombers. But then, when has humanity thought

> > much of human life and its values. Wars have been with us from times

> > Scriptural!

> >

> > RR

> >

> >

> > <%40>,

> > neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@> wrote:

> > >

> > > And also burns itself in the process!

> > > Are we talking about annihilation here?

> > >

> > > Watch out for what? HYPER-GOLS!

> > >

> > > Neelam

> > >

> > >

> > > 2009/4/10 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@>

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > > >

> > > > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

> > > > chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at

> > the

> > > > slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about which

> > ends

> > > > up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

> > > >

> > > > How interesting!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

<%40><%

> > 40>,

> > > > " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear RR ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

> > noise! "

> > > > //

> > > > >

> > > > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

> > potential

> > > > to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known

> > civilsation.

> > > > So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

RR ji,

Will you like to analyze the horoscope of great grandfather of all jihaadis ? I

made it long ago, but no publisher will ever publish it, for fear of jihaadis.

It has all the yogas which caused Islam to spread with lighting speed.

-VJ

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

 

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:50:10 AM

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Neelam ji,

 

If I *knew* the answer to such a crucial problem that runs rampant across our

human society, would I be hanging out here where all devotees convene ;-)

 

Seriously, though, I have not been approached by any jihaadi or suicide bomber

or a fanatic of that caliber or one that I recall. I am just being honest and do

not just conjure up an answer or yoga/combination, just for the heck of it ;-)

 

But if you ask around, I bet you will get an answer and perhaps many...

 

Rohiniranjan

 

, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ ...> wrote:

>

> Strangely, that is what I thought too, a terrorist (of any kind) including

> the suicide bomber!

> One from the populace, but charged with the wrong chemicals/chemistry .

>

> Which varga do you think should have gone wrong? Chaturthamsha?

>

> Regards

> Neelam

>

>

>

> 2009/4/12 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> >

> >

> > No Neelam ji, just the 'wrong' chemistry landing on and in the matchhead

> > :-)

> >

> > When I wrote about the matchstick and forest, I was specifically thinking

> > of the sad reality of 'suicide' bombers. But then, when has humanity thought

> > much of human life and its values. Wars have been with us from times

> > Scriptural!

> >

> > RR

> >

> >

> > <% 40. com>,

> > neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > And also burns itself in the process!

> > > Are we talking about annihilation here?

> > >

> > > Watch out for what? HYPER-GOLS!

> > >

> > > Neelam

> > >

> > >

> > > 2009/4/10 Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > > >

> > > > If I may extend that thought: It is the explosive, easily inflammed

> > > > chemistry at the head of the wooden matchstick that is responsible, at

> > the

> > > > slightest friction to then create this firestorm you talked about which

> > ends

> > > > up the matchstick burning the very forest it came from :-)

> > > >

> > > > How interesting!

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <% 40.

com><JyotishGrou p%

> > 40. com>,

> > > > " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear RR ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > // As they say, " Trees falling in remote forests do not make any

> > noise! "

> > > > //

> > > > >

> > > > > But a single matchstick made from those fallen tress, has the

> > potential

> > > > to create a firestorm and cause great havoc,in a nearby known

> > civilsation.

> > > > So underestimation may not be the apt itinerary.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Baap se baap ka naam pooch raha hai

 

Saalay maartay maartay bicha doonga teray ko main,, bloody bandar

 

Teri maaa ke saath purdah boxing ki thi

 

pooch jaa ke

 

bakbak band ker nahin to teray ko main kahin ka nahin chooroonga

 

tamiz main aa jaaa ab samjha naaa

 

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Cc: indian_kachua

Sunday, April 12, 2009, 7:21 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

What wise talk did you give yourself in this forum with what proof so far?

 

What have you proved yourself so far? Can you name any?

 

You are wasting time of others with unsubstantiated statements?

 

If you have respect for your good parents use the name they gave you and don't

hesitate to declare that. Why remain behind a purdah and why try

behind-the-purdah boxing?

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 4/11/09, indian_kachua <indian_kachua wrote:

 

 

indian_kachua <indian_kachua

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

 

Saturday, April 11, 2009, 9:32 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why are you wasting time of others in your stupid talks without any proof

 

go and learn after that write

 

You have proved nothing till now

 

wasting times of others in hollow talks

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Kachuaji,

>

> Why don't you give the details of what happened in which fora that upsets you

so much? Which shadow bowing I have done and which fora I left? I have not

resigned from any fora uptill now. Kalyanaramanji does not want me in his fora

because of my belief in astrlogy. Kaulji does not want me in his forum as I

oppose his views of Indian astrology. They invited me to their fora and they

removed from their fora. I have no regret for that. Are you upset as I have

opposed the views of Vinayji?

>

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

>

> What prevents the kachua from divulging the names of the forums he is

referring to. Kachua !?can you not?substantiate your statements? If you think

you have to present something please do so otherwise stop these ?hollow

statements. That will be better than your giving judgement on others.

>

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ ...>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:57 AM

>

>

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on?only and only on one

forum?forwarded from other forums.....

> ?

> He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

> ?

> He has nothing to present....

> ?

> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

>

> Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

>

> -SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

>

> BROTHERS ???

>

> Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

>

> It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a

> brother of Yami (twin). All traditional grammarians deduced it from the root

//bhraash// which means " to shine " , and has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too.

A brother never shines, but the Sun shines. The original Vedic meaning of

bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " , and " brother " is a later Laukika

meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in Rgveda might be related to //bhr// ,

but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which means husband. A father bears/sustains,

and then husband sustains, not the brother. But the Sun shines as well as

sustains everything alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

>

> the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr..

We should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji

will take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

>

> -VJ

>

> ____________ _________

> _________ __

>

> Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

>

>

>

> Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

>

> Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Dear Shri Vinayji,

>

> Thanks for so good clarifications.

>

> Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

>

> Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

>

> Please continue.

>

> Luv and Regards

>

> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

>

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

>

>

> Tuesday, April 7,

> 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong

interpretations of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in

common mailbox, hence I am posting it again :

>

> >>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

>

> According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from

sitting among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to

see good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted

out to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such

feasts. Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's

" apaankta " , but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an

an antonym for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " ,

which is used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But

who are these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say

> astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no

derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn....iii.183-

185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which

proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

>

> " pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler

> translated Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on

wrong translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees

are different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term

" jyotishi " in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

>

> MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

>

> Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down

a bit, he

> may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should

devote his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient

predictive principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I

developed, I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita

best suits the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into

Suryasiddhanta, I used astrological softwares developed by others and then

developed astrological softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did

not give accurate Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not

satisfactory. Other software developers also know this problem, that is why they

are experimenting with various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with

various values of ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of

astrology and is merely interested in

>

> solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

> time.

>

> When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to

read my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to

understand it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word

from me. I hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded

anger. I tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to

facts, but I failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request

him to drop this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days

when he calms down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

>

> with regards,

>

> -VJ <<<<<<<<<<

>

> I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

>

> " A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others

and rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit

> his own mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

>

> My answer is:

>

> What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

>

> Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon

> each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle,

repetitive pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace

of any cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian

cycle (59.3 solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is

true only for 50% and false for the rest 50% ?

>

> Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60

years, 60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over

250 degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala

at mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

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

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear

> Rohini,

>

> >

>

> > Thank you for the good words.

>

> >

>

> > Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

>

> >

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> >

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> >

>

> > Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

> >

>

> > Dear Sunilda,

>

> >

>

> > Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

>

> > If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

>

> >

>

> > Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

>

> >

>

> > It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive

> pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and

readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and

to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

>

> >

>

> > Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

>

> >

>

> > Pranaams

>

> >

>

> >

> Rohiniranjan

>

> >

>

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

>

> > >

>

> > > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

>

> > >

>

> > > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the

> utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its value better it

will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am

not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without

any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay

Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

>

> > > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the

AIA. As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship

him there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge

of Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

>

> > >

>

> > > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If

anybody is interested the old

> mails of the groups are there to refer to.

>

> > >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

>

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Sunil bhai/Dada,

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

>

> > >

>

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you

shared with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > At least in the post that I responded to?

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Rohiniranjan

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Dear all.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

> >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

>

> > >

>

> > > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

>

> > >

>

> > > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 2)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

>

> > >

>

> > > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

>

> > >

>

> > > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

>

> > >

>

> > > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

>

> >

> >

>

> > > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

>

> > >

>

> > > > have taught Mayasura.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 3)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

>

> > >

>

> > > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

>

> > >

>

> > > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

>

> > >

>

> > > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

>

> > >

>

> > > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > about it with proof.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 4)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

>

> > >

>

> > > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

>

> > >

>

> > > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

>

> > >

>

> > > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

>

> > >

>

> > > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

>

> > >

>

> > > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

>

> > >

>

> > > >

> published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

>

> > >

>

> > > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

>

> > >

>

> > > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

>

> > >

>

> > > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

>

> > >

>

> > > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

>

> > >

>

> > > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

>

> > >

>

> > > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

>

> > >

>

> > > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

>

> > >

>

> > > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

>

> > >

>

> > > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

>

> > >

>

> > > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

>

> > >

>

> > > > attack on him.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 5)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji says

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > You got

> the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

>

> > >

>

> > > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

>

> > >

>

> > > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

>

> > >

>

> > > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

>

> > >

>

> > > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

>

> > >

>

> > > >

> playing tricks with him.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 6)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

>

> > >

>

> > > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

>

> > >

>

> > > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

>

> > >

>

> > > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

>

> > >

>

> > > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

>

> > >

>

> > > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

>

> > >

>

> > > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

>

> > >

>

> > > > normal

> human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

>

> > >

>

> > > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

>

> > >

>

> > > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > 7)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

>

> > >

>

> > > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

>

> > >

>

> > > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

>

> > >

>

> > > > given in his own websites.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > 8)

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

>

> > >

>

> > > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

>

> > >

>

> > > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

>

> > >

>

> > > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

>

> > >

>

> > > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

>

> > >

>

> > > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

>

> > >

>

> > > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

>

> > >

>

> > > >

> from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

>

> > >

>

> > > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

>

> > >

>

> > > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

>

> > >

>

> > > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

>

> > >

>

> > > > verse meant just the reverse. 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 these ceremonies. Kaulji

>

> > >

>

> > > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

>

> > >

>

> > > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

>

> > >

>

> > > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

>

> > >

>

> > > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

>

> > >

>

> > > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

>

> > >

>

> > > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

>

> > >

>

> > > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

>

> > >

>

> > > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

>

> > >

>

> > > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

>

> > >

>

> > > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

>

> > >

>

> > > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

>

> > >

>

> > > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

>

> > >

>

> > > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

>

> > >

>

> > > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

>

> > >

>

>

> > > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

>

> > >

>

> > > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

>

> > >

>

> > > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

>

> > >

>

> > > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

>

> > >

>

> > > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

>

> > >

>

> > > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

>

> > >

>

> > > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

>

> > >

>

> > > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

>

> > >

>

> > > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough

> at

>

> > >

>

> > > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

>

> > >

>

> > > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers

as he

>

> > >

>

> > > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

>

> > >

>

> > > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

>

> > >

>

> > > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot

assert that

>

> > >

>

> > > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

>

> > >

>

> > > > so far and it is

> also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

>

> > >

>

> > > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison..

..

>

> > >

>

> > > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

>

> > >

>

> > > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Regards nevertheless,

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

>

> > >

>

> > > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > To ALL :

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> > >

>

> > > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

>

> > >

>

> > > >

>

> >

> >

>

> > > > comparati

>

>