Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 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 ================== =================== Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya vinayjhaa16 Tuesday, April 7, 2009 4:35:22 AM Fw: Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Cc: Monday, April 6, 2009, 7:28 AM Dear Bhaskarji and Neelamji, You can now see how Vinayji is lying. My mails are there to show what I said. I do not know if his past Marxist background has anything to do with this anti-astrology attitude. His unsubstantiated (hence false) claims that he alone understands the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta because of his tapasya is only meant to make people lose their faith in the Suryasiddhanta. He is in the same league as Kaulji. He cannot give you any reference from Manu Smriti as Manu never said that astrologers are chandalas. What Manu said was that the astrologers, physicians , temple priests and people of several other professions are barred from being invited to Devakarya and Pitrukarya. Only non-professionals like poor intellectuals were to be invited and the given food and dakshina. . Vinayji claimed that in Mahabharata also the astrologers are called Chandala. It is another lie and he cannot give any verse to you. I think Chandrahariji was right in what all he said about him. Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned the months in his paper on monsoon cycles and that is fallacious. For example January 1901 to December 1960 may appear to be 59 years years but it is actually near 60 years than 59. Similarly December 1901 to January 1962 may appear to be 61 years but actually it is more near 60 years. He just wanted to hoodwink the audience. i am sure the audience wasamused but did not bother to give any importance to what he said. Monsoon is what decides the crop and he is denying the role of the return of Jupiter, the Sun amd the Moon at the end of 60 years to the same position convinces me that he does not understand the role of the grahas and so he does not really understand astrology at all. Even the Saturn completes two cycles in 60 years and so it is also in the same position in 60 years. He also admitted that old data are not available to give the results for several cycles yet he does not hesitate to claim exactly 61 year cycle (ie 61 X 12 = 732 months cycle) and he has not mentioned any variance of even a month in that. What an unscientific approach? Please be careful of correspondence with him as he does not hesitate to twist matters if that suits him. Regards, Sunil K.Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 4/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote: vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Monday, April 6, 2009, 4:14 AM TO ALL : An astrological issue of great importance is being declared to be non-astrological. I am amused to find the same team here united against me without any reason and with abuses, which fruatrated my attempts to discuss anything worthwhile in AIA. I am surprised at their teamspirit and want to point out the underlying causes which is the cementing force uniting them, and what harm they are doing to astrology. First of all, I will like to answer Bhaskarji's charge that I am abusing all astrologers as chaandaalas without providing any refernce to Manusmriti and MBh. In answer, I am quoting recent mail of Sunilji in this thread " Kaulji said that the astrologers are Chandalas without knowing that any dishonest person in any profession is a Chandala. He did not accept that astrology was known in the ancient times in India though he himself said that Manu mentioned that astrologers are not to be invited to participate in Devakarya and Pitrikarya and he was withholding the fact the physicians and the temple priest are also not to be invited for ...... " It was Kaulji who said all astrologers are chaandaalas according to Manusmriti. Sunilji corerected him by adding that according to Manu not only all astrologers but all physicians and all temple priests are also chaandaalas. I countered this misinterpretation of Manusmriti by Sunilji, and said that only those astrologers, physicians and priests were declared to be chaandaalas who made a living out of these professions. This is literal meaning. In my view, astrologers and others need money to live in this world and therefore have a right to accept dakshinaa. I know a large number of pandits who adhere to this principle and accept dakshinaa but do not ask for fees. I could have accepted dakshinaas had I not been provided with alternative source for livlihood. Hence, the real sense of manusmriti must have been that only thugs are chaandaalas who pose as astrologers & c but are actually after the pockets of their clients. It is strange that Bhaskarji is forgiving Sunulji who made false and derogatory remarks against all astrologers & c, and is inciting all members here on false pretexts. I merely corrected Sunilji who was making a misinterpretation. Why Bhaskarji does not ask Sunilji to provide the verse, which will make it clear who is lying about Manusmriti and who is leveling false charge on me ? Instead, Bhaskarji call me a hypocrite and concludes that I have " nothing to offer " . Neelamji joined the fray against me, as she did in AIA, concluding that my mails have " any nugget of worth " , repeating Bhaskarji's charge that I am good for nothing, and sympathising with Bhaskarji's false charges against me that I call all astrologers as chaandaalas ( " It is painful to see a scholar like Vinay ji use such terminology which has no basis in any Shastra " ). I am being charged of what was actually said by Sunilji, whom Neelamji hails as a good umpire to judge me (earlier she had hailed Chandrahariji who could pass a verdict on me). Now, Sreenadhji has also joined in this fray ( cf. http://dir.groups. / group/JyotishGro up/message/ 22847 : " Does those parasites in search of a free meal will feed the family of the astrologer or what?! " . Although I adhere to strict rules of sanyasa, I need not beg for free meals because I have permanent source of income. But I am a parasite, because I distribute my works freely !! These same people have abused all astrologers who are now falsely blaming me for doing so, I only corrected the reference. These people do not know how to quote, how to read and how to behave in a forum. Neelam Gupta is a liar because she charges me of offering " a second line of predictive astrology " . I had made it clear in AIA and in my website that I strictly adhere to Parashara's predictive astrology (BPHS & c). Why she is leveling a false charge on me ? These persons want to ban ( " shun " as bhaskarji said) a person like me who is advocating the rules of sages in the field of Vedic Astrrology. Neelam Gupta should ask Sunilji to stop diverting the discussion away from astrology. Instead, she is accusing me of this diversion. I never liked any discussion on history, because I am basically a software developer and lengthy discussion not related to current problems of practical astrology hampers my work. But those very persons are charging me of diversion who are themselves guilty of diverting the topic on astrology to history or to wine and even to sex (I have in store previous mails of these fellows, some of which contained nothing but obscene abuses to my mother and sister). In AIA, I had also quoted a message from PVR Narasimhaji, supported by Sanjay Rath ji, which said that the team of Chandrahariji is too dogmatic to listen to others. This same team is after my flesh and blood now. Lastly, I must answer the useless message of Sunilji who is hellbent on diverting astrological discussions to other things merely with a view to malign me and get me banned.He wants a discussion on my technical paper on weather forecasting and teleconnections in an astrological forum. How many members here know the meaning of " teleconnections " in weather science ? I am sorry to note that Sunilji regards a difference of 1.7 years as merely " a fraction of a year " !! He rejects the very existence of 61-year ctcle because he fails to understand a scientific paper. His first charge is I had " not given any substantive data " . I worked on already existing data of IITM ,Pune which I cited in reference-10 which were originally for 1871-1978 but are constantly being updated (I also used 1813-2007 dataset from IITM, but it was only for ISMR and not for whole years, hence I could not use it properly). Sunilji can get these datasest from IITM (Pune) and check for himself whether I worked without authentic data or not. Why should I fill up my paper with data well known to weather scientists ? I was asked my referees to remove well known items in order to present only new things. I lucidly explained in my paper how I used and analyzed that dataset. His second charge is that I gave no repeat cycles and gave no dates of any particular year in my paper. Either his eyesight is defective or his intentions are far from sincere. I gave comparison of two cycles in six figures, of three cycles in one figure and of four cycles in one figure ( Fig-1,2,3,4, 6,7,9) . Annual data of only 136 years are availabe in the case of India, which could facilitate comparision of only two whole cycles of 61 years, and partial comparison of three cycles (1813-2007 dataset can give more span but less reliability due lack of whole year's data). Surprisingly, Sunilji asks me to work on " at least two or three centuries " ; he does not even know that rainfall data for India does not exist for so long periods. Clearly, he is a novice in this field, but Neelamji thanks him for " volunteering to be the good umpire " ! The referees of IISc or experts of NASA were unfit, and a chemist like Sunilji should judge my work ! Why he does not inform the referees of CAOS, IISc that they erred in selecting my paper ? Sunilji falsely says that my paper does not give years clearly. My paper ( http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+ to+Rain+Forecast ing ) says : " 1957 AD is numbered 87 (= 1957 - 1870 ) and will be found in the second series in blue . When the second curve was superimposed upon the first one, shape of both waveforms coincided in a majority of cases when the gap between both series was chosen to be 61 years. Waveform of 1891-1923 ( year nos. 21-53 ) had an similarity in shape with that of 1952-1984 ( year numbers 82-114) in 25 out of 33 years , only 8 years were out of phase. " Even a cursory glance at Fig-2 in my paper will convince any unbiased onlooker that annual rainfall waveform replicate the waveform of 61-years away for 50% of the time, even if we change 61 to 60 or to 62, this replication will cease. Why Sunilji deliberately falsifies an important discovery is not difficult to guess. He has a prejuduce for 60-year Jovian cycle, and cannot accept any new fact against his prejudice. The Jovian cycle is quite different from the solar cycle of 61 years. Due to his prejudices, Sunilji is deliberately falsifying data and facts. He says about me " He does not even know how to write a scientific paper properly and to report authentically. " Unfortunately, it is Sunilji whio does not even know how to read a scientific paper properly and to report honestly. As for the date of Kalidasa, I do not know his arguments for his dating of Kalidasa in 8th century BC. I have no access to his full paper, I got a passage quoted in another person's work. Hence, I neither accept nor refute his dating. But my knowledge of Sunilji's " scientific " temper leads me to suspect his dating has no substantiation. He had said that Suryasiddhanta had one hundred thousand verses. He makes wild statements and does not cite sources. I am repeating my earlier statement that the true date of Kalidasa can be judged only by procuring some old prints of Ritusamhara which contained a verse at the end stating the date and tithi, but era was not stated ; later publishers omitted this verse because they thought a text of literature should not contain a mathematical verse about dating written in archaic astrological language. I have a photocopy of that page, the worn out book is in the possession of an elderly person. Unfortunately, Sunilji pokes fun at all my statements without any reason. It is asign of his bizarre " scientific " attitude ! He is misguided by his ignorance in saying " Vinayji is wrong when he says that INSA (India National Science Academy) papers are not peer-reviewed. " I never said Chandrahariji' s papers were not published in peer-reviewed journals, I said that Chandrahariji published his wrong interprewtations of Suryasiddhanta in journals whose panel included peers of other disciplines, not a singlr expert of Suryasiddhanta was there. I can prove this statement in a court of law, as I have already done. There is no other cure for liars who pose as experts of texts which they do not understand. Neelamji is a light minded person who thinks the fundamental texts of Indian astrology should not be discussed and monsoon-cycles have nothiong to do with astrology. If she has no interest in serious issues, she can keep away from these topics and forget me. But no, the friends of Chandrahariji have a mission : they want to modify the meaning of Suryasiddhanta which is not possible as long as I am here. Hence, I must be hanged or fired. Friends, wait for some time. I am going to dispel all this fog created by a small team (from AIA), for which I need some time, for translating my works into English. Ancient Indian mundane astrology was a great science, which I want to bring to fore ; it will help in individual horoscopy as well. I have discovered nothing new. What Neelamji wants to ban is not " my " method, my only crime is that I made a free software out of this ancient method, which forms the bedrock of Jyotishaachaarya curriculum in all Sanskrit universities. Some supposedly " scientific " persons think all ancient things must be discarded, hence this hue and cry against me without even testing my free software !! Let them forget me and my software, why waste so much of time over me ? -VJ ============ == ============ == ============ == , neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ ...> wrote: > > Dear RR ji, Sunil ji, Vinay ji and all, > > Welcome to this fray RR ji! And thanks for bringing in some hope by > volunteering to be the good umpire, for a good cause. Can I request you all > to put an end to this series which has outlived its value, if it ever had > any. Enough matches have been played in public view at various venues (read > fora) without any conclusive results. Most of the players who joined > initially have been smart enough to withdraw, not willing to fritter away > their precious time and energy. > > Having witnessed this futile exchange (amusingly, painstakingly and > agonizingly and devastatingly… in that order), for quite a few months now, I > do not foresee a peaceful agreement here. With due regards to Vinay Jha ji's > knowledge and status, we really do not have the time and inclination to go > through the incoherent verbosity of the long-winded messages, with a > diminutive hope of stumbling upon any nugget of worth. > > We cannot master everything in this short life. With one mainstay > profession, a second line of predictive astrology is more than what I (and > some others like me) can handle with some level of justification. Moreover, > this is a Jyotish group, and technically we may perhaps discuss our core > subject only and not stray into the undesired and unrequited realms of > history and astronomy. > > Hope I am not making an unfair request! Let us get on with our core > interest. > > Regards > Neelam > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2009 Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaaStrange Forums !sunil_bhattacharjyaDate: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:27 AM Sir,I was not aware of group politics among internet astrologers, because I am a new entrant to forums. Had Sreenadh not requested me to join AIA, Iwould not have learnt about the existence of these internet forums. Sreenadh was good initially, but Chandrahariji deliberately spoiled the environment. Chandraharijiis the leader of a well organized team of Keralites. You might remember a message of PVY Narasimha Rao and Sanjay Rath quoted by me in AIA sating that Chandrahariji's team is fanatically attached to its own ideas and is doggedly opposed to all other views. This politics has now entered into JyotisgGroup forum. My messages are being moderated, edited and even destroyed.I am sending you the message I sent at 10:10 AM today in response to your message under in thread Greeks vs Indians , it was not allowed to appear there for reasons not explined to me. All topics started by me is being destroyed by useless diversions by Mr Bhaskar and his friends, who is a close friend of the owner of this group, and sent me numerous obscene mails abusing my mother, sister & c. I also have my friends, but I will not waste my time over useless politics. >>>>>>>>> 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================== =================== Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyavinayjhaa16Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 4:35:22 AMFw: Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Cc: Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 7:28 AM Dear Bhaskarji and Neelamji,You can now see how Vinayji is lying. My mails are there to show what I said. I do not know if his past Marxist background has anything to do with this anti-astrology attitude. His unsubstantiated (hence false) claims that he alone understands the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta because of his tapasya is only meant to make people lose their faith in the Suryasiddhanta. He is in the same league as Kaulji. He cannot give you any reference from Manu Smriti as Manu never said that astrologers are chandalas. What Manu said was that the astrologers, physicians , temple priests and people of several other professions are barred from being invited to Devakarya and Pitrukarya. Only non-professionals like poor intellectuals were to be invited and the given food and dakshina. . Vinayji claimed that in Mahabharata also the astrologers are called Chandala. It is another lie and he cannot give any verse to you. I think Chandrahariji was right in what all he said about him.Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned the months in his paper on monsoon cycles and that is fallacious. For example January 1901 to December 1960 may appear to be 59 years years but it is actually near 60 years than 59. Similarly December 1901 to January 1962 may appear to be 61 years but actually it is more near 60 years. He just wanted to hoodwink the audience. i am sure the audience wasamused but did not bother to give any importance to what he said. Monsoon is what decides the crop and he is denying the role of the return of Jupiter, the Sun amd the Moon at the end of 60 years to the same position convinces me that he does not understand the role of the grahas and so he does not really understand astrology at all. Even the Saturn completes two cycles in 60 years and so it is also in the same position in 60 years. He also admitted that old data are not available to give the results for several cycles yet he does not hesitate to claim exactly 61 year cycle (ie 61 X 12 = 732 months cycle) and he has not mentioned any variance of even a month in that. What an unscientific approach? Please be careful of correspondence with him as he does not hesitate to twist matters if that suits him.Regards,Sunil K.Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 4/6/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote: vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 4:14 AM TO ALL :An astrological issue of great importance is being declared to benon-astrological.I am amused to find the same team here united against me without anyreason and with abuses, which fruatrated my attempts to discuss anythingworthwhile in AIA. I am surprised at their teamspirit and want to pointout the underlying causes which is the cementing force uniting them, andwhat harm they are doing to astrology.First of all, I will like to answer Bhaskarji's charge that I am abusingall astrologers as chaandaalas without providing any refernce toManusmriti and MBh. In answer, I am quoting recent mail of Sunilji inthis thread "Kaulji said that the astrologers are Chandalas withoutknowing that any dishonest person in any profession is a Chandala. Hedid not accept that astrology was known in the ancient times in Indiathough he himself said that Manu mentioned that astrologers are not tobe invited to participate in Devakarya and Pitrikarya and he waswithholding the fact the physicians and the temple priest are also notto be invited for ......"It was Kaulji who said all astrologers are chaandaalas according toManusmriti. Sunilji corerected him by adding that according to Manu notonly all astrologers but all physicians and all temple priests are alsochaandaalas. I countered this misinterpretation of Manusmriti bySunilji, and said that only those astrologers, physicians and priestswere declared to be chaandaalas who made a living out of theseprofessions. This is literal meaning. In my view, astrologers and othersneed money to live in this world and therefore have a right to acceptdakshinaa. I know a large number of pandits who adhere to this principleand accept dakshinaa but do not ask for fees. I could have accepteddakshinaas had I not been provided with alternative source forlivlihood. Hence, the real sense of manusmriti must have been that onlythugs are chaandaalas who pose as astrologers & c but are actually afterthe pockets of their clients. It is strange that Bhaskarji is forgivingSunulji who made false and derogatory remarks against all astrologers & c, and is inciting all members here on false pretexts. I merelycorrected Sunilji who was making a misinterpretation. Why Bhaskarji doesnot ask Sunilji to provide the verse, which will make it clear who islying about Manusmriti and who is leveling false charge on me ? Instead,Bhaskarji call me a hypocrite and concludes that I have "nothing tooffer".Neelamji joined the fray against me, as she did in AIA, concluding thatmy mails have "any nugget of worth", repeating Bhaskarji's charge that Iam good for nothing, and sympathising with Bhaskarji's false chargesagainst me that I call all astrologers as chaandaalas ("It is painful tosee a scholar like Vinay ji use such terminology which has no basis inany Shastra"). I am being charged of what was actually said by Sunilji,whom Neelamji hails as a good umpire to judge me (earlier she had hailedChandrahariji who could pass a verdict on me). Now, Sreenadhji has alsojoined in this fray ( cf.http://dir.groups. / group/JyotishGro up/message/ 22847 : "Doesthose parasites in search of a free meal will feed the family of theastrologer or what?!". Although I adhere to strict rules of sanyasa, Ineed not beg for free meals because I have permanent source of income.But I am a parasite, because I distribute my works freely !! These samepeople have abused all astrologers who are now falsely blaming me fordoing so, I only corrected the reference. These people do not know howto quote, how to read and how to behave in a forum.Neelam Gupta is a liar because she charges me of offering "a second lineof predictive astrology". I had made it clear in AIA and in my websitethat I strictly adhere to Parashara's predictive astrology (BPHS & c).Why she is leveling a false charge on me ? These persons want to ban("shun" as bhaskarji said) a person like me who is advocating the rulesof sages in the field of Vedic Astrrology. Neelam Gupta should askSunilji to stop diverting the discussion away from astrology. Instead,she is accusing me of this diversion. I never liked any discussion onhistory, because I am basically a software developer and lengthydiscussion not related to current problems of practical astrologyhampers my work. But those very persons are charging me of diversion whoare themselves guilty of diverting the topic on astrology to history orto wine and even to sex (I have in store previous mails of thesefellows, some of which contained nothing but obscene abuses to my motherand sister). In AIA, I had also quoted a message from PVR Narasimhaji,supported by Sanjay Rath ji, which said that the team of Chandraharijiis too dogmatic to listen to others. This same team is after my fleshand blood now.Lastly, I must answer the useless message of Sunilji who is hellbent ondiverting astrological discussions to other things merely with a view tomalign me and get me banned.He wants a discussion on my technical paperon weather forecasting and teleconnections in an astrological forum. Howmany members here know the meaning of "teleconnections" in weatherscience ? I am sorry to note that Sunilji regards a difference of 1.7years as merely "a fraction of a year"!! He rejects the very existenceof 61-year ctcle because he fails to understand a scientific paper. Hisfirst charge is I had "not given any substantive data". I worked onalready existing data of IITM ,Pune which I cited in reference-10 whichwere originally for 1871-1978 but are constantly being updated (I alsoused 1813-2007 dataset from IITM, but it was only for ISMR and not forwhole years, hence I could not use it properly). Sunilji can get thesedatasest from IITM (Pune) and check for himself whether I worked withoutauthentic data or not. Why should I fill up my paper with data wellknown to weather scientists ? I was asked my referees to remove wellknown items in order to present only new things. I lucidly explained inmy paper how I used and analyzed that dataset.His second charge is that I gave no repeat cycles and gave no dates ofany particular year in my paper. Either his eyesight is defective or hisintentions are far from sincere. I gave comparison of two cycles in sixfigures, of three cycles in one figure and of four cycles in one figure( Fig-1,2,3,4, 6,7,9) . Annual data of only 136 years are availabe in thecase of India, which could facilitate comparision of only two wholecycles of 61 years, and partial comparison of three cycles (1813-2007dataset can give more span but less reliability due lack of whole year'sdata). Surprisingly, Sunilji asks me to work on "at least two or threecenturies" ; he does not even know that rainfall data for India does notexist for so long periods. Clearly, he is a novice in this field, butNeelamji thanks him for "volunteering to be the good umpire" ! Thereferees of IISc or experts of NASA were unfit, and a chemist likeSunilji should judge my work ! Why he does not inform the referees ofCAOS, IISc that they erred in selecting my paper ?Sunilji falsely says that my paper does not give years clearly. My paper(http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+ to+Rain+Forecast ing) says : "1957 AD is numbered 87 (= 1957 - 1870 ) and will be found inthe second series in blue . When the second curve was superimposed uponthe first one, shape of both waveforms coincided in a majority of caseswhen the gap between both series was chosen to be 61 years. Waveform of1891-1923 ( year nos. 21-53 ) had an similarity in shape with that of1952-1984 ( year numbers 82-114) in 25 out of 33 years , only 8 yearswere out of phase. " Even a cursory glance at Fig-2 in my paper willconvince any unbiased onlooker that annual rainfall waveform replicatethe waveform of 61-years away for 50% of the time, even if we change 61to 60 or to 62, this replication will cease. Why Sunilji deliberatelyfalsifies an important discovery is not difficult to guess. He has aprejuduce for 60-year Jovian cycle, and cannot accept any new factagainst his prejudice. The Jovian cycle is quite different from thesolar cycle of 61 years. Due to his prejudices, Sunilji is deliberatelyfalsifying data and facts. He says about me "He does not even know howto write a scientific paper properly and to report authentically. "Unfortunately, it is Sunilji whio does not even know how to read ascientific paper properly and to report honestly.As for the date of Kalidasa, I do not know his arguments for his datingof Kalidasa in 8th century BC. I have no access to his full paper, I gota passage quoted in another person's work. Hence, I neither accept norrefute his dating. But my knowledge of Sunilji's "scientific" temperleads me to suspect his dating has no substantiation. He had said thatSuryasiddhanta had one hundred thousand verses. He makes wild statementsand does not cite sources. I am repeating my earlier statement that thetrue date of Kalidasa can be judged only by procuring some old prints ofRitusamhara which contained a verse at the end stating the date andtithi, but era was not stated ; later publishers omitted this versebecause they thought a text of literature should not contain amathematical verse about dating written in archaic astrologicallanguage. I have a photocopy of that page, the worn out book is in thepossession of an elderly person. Unfortunately, Sunilji pokes fun at allmy statements without any reason. It is asign of his bizarre"scientific" attitude !He is misguided by his ignorance in saying "Vinayji is wrong when hesays that INSA (India National Science Academy) papers are notpeer-reviewed. " I never said Chandrahariji' s papers were not publishedin peer-reviewed journals, I said that Chandrahariji published his wronginterprewtations of Suryasiddhanta in journals whose panel includedpeers of other disciplines, not a singlr expert of Suryasiddhanta wasthere. I can prove this statement in a court of law, as I have alreadydone. There is no other cure for liars who pose as experts of textswhich they do not understand. Neelamji is a light minded person whothinks the fundamental texts of Indian astrology should not be discussedand monsoon-cycles have nothiong to do with astrology. If she has nointerest in serious issues, she can keep away from these topics andforget me. But no, the friends of Chandrahariji have a mission : theywant to modify the meaning of Suryasiddhanta which is not possible aslong as I am here. Hence, I must be hanged or fired.Friends, wait for some time. I am going to dispel all this fog createdby a small team (from AIA), for which I need some time, for translatingmy works into English. Ancient Indian mundane astrology was a greatscience, which I want to bring to fore ; it will help in individualhoroscopy as well. I have discovered nothing new. What Neelamji wants toban is not "my" method, my only crime is that I made a free software outof this ancient method, which forms the bedrock of Jyotishaachaaryacurriculum in all Sanskrit universities. Some supposedly "scientific"persons think all ancient things must be discarded, hence this hue andcry against me without even testing my free software !! Let them forgetme and my software, why waste so much of time over me ?-VJ============ == ============ == ============ ==, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ ...>wrote:>> Dear RR ji, Sunil ji, Vinay ji and all,>> Welcome to this fray RR ji! And thanks for bringing in some hope by> volunteering to be the good umpire, for a good cause. Can I requestyou all> to put an end to this series which has outlived its value, if it everhad> any. Enough matches have been played in public view at various venues(read> fora) without any conclusive results. Most of the players who joined> initially have been smart enough to withdraw, not willing to fritteraway> their precious time and energy.>> Having witnessed this futile exchange (amusingly, painstakingly and> agonizingly and devastatingly… in that order), for quite a fewmonths now, I> do not foresee a peaceful agreement here. With due regards to VinayJha ji's> knowledge and status, we really do not have the time and inclinationto go> through the incoherent verbosity of the long-winded messages, with a> diminutive hope of stumbling upon any nugget of worth.>> We cannot master everything in this short life. With one mainstay> profession, a second line of predictive astrology is more than what I(and> some others like me) can handle with some level of justification.Moreover,> this is a Jyotish group, and technically we may perhaps discuss ourcore> subject only and not stray into the undesired and unrequited realms of> history and astronomy.>> Hope I am not making an unfair request! Let us get on with our core> interest.>> Regards> Neelam>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.