Re:Rashi_Vedic literature_Chronology_Sidereal

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the SiderealWAVES-Vedic Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 4:40 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Avinash Sathaye,

 

Firstly you have forgotten that the main issue was whether the Rashis are mentioned in the Vedic literature or not. There are some people who think thart the Rashis are imported from the Greeks and that the Rashis are not mentioned in the Vedic literature. Nobody seems to address this issue.. So I thought that it would be good if I provide some information on that along with some chronological information. I showed that Rashi is given in the Vedic literature. Even a single mention of the Rashi is enough to dispel the doubt as to whether Rashi is there in the Vedic literature or not. I have given the information and it is upto the Vedic scholars to make their own assessment. Your mails are already being circulated in some Internet Fora by the interested people who want to show that the Rashis are not in the Vedic literature and you now you say :

 

Quote

 

I am not proposing the existence or absence of rashis in the Rigveda.

 

Unquote

 

It is written in the Mahabharata that before reading the Vedas one has to read the Puranas and the Epics. This is because otherwise one can misunderstand the Vedas. You want to interpret the Vedas by going straightway to the Vedas, though that is against the advice that the Vedas are to be read only after reading the Puranas. Further the Puranas have been given the status of fifth Veda. I have also mentioned in my mail about the Brahma Rashi in Mahabharata and how it became Makar Rashi in the Bhagavata purana. I expected you to see the Bhagavata purana first if you are really a Vedic scholar. But you are avoiding the Bhagavata purana, which mentions the Rashis most unambiguously. Bhagavata purana has direct meanings so one cannot have any confusion about the meaning. You do not want to admit that the Rashis are mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana. Moreover you seem to have doubt about the the fact that

the Vedic verse can have more than one meaning. If you want clearcut meaning then the Vedas are not for you as the Vedas dislike the clearcut meaning. So unless one is very profficient in the knowledge of the Vedas one can always question the meaning of the Vedic verse. It is for this reason that in the ancient times the uninitiated were not allowed to read the Vedas. One has to read the Vedangas before reading the Vedas and that too under a good Vedic scholar. .

 

If you consider my interpretations of the Vedic verses as assertions and your interpretations as not assertions I have nothing to say.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunl K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohumRe: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal"Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjyaWednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:46 AM

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya,I am not proposing the existence or absence of Rashis in the Rigveda. All I am asking for is something besides just an assertion that they are mentioned in the Rigveda.I will be quite happy to see a meaningful explanation of at least one of your references in Rigveda which makes it appear as a reference to Rashis and not what the traditional commentary stipulates. As you surely know, mImAMsakas made their method of interpretation as a logical system with rules and deductions which can be consistently applied everywhere. That way, even the people who do not agree with them cannot brush them aside as just arbitrary interpreters. Yaska in his work also established and applied rules illustrated with examples.I wish the believers in the parokSha meanings would do something comparable. At any rate, if you do not wish to explain further, I will not ask you any further

questions.Good luck with your future interpretations.P.S. I still don't understand why you do not mention the edition of the Vedanga Jyotisha that you are getting your verses from. Was that such an unreasonable request?Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

 

 

I have given enough information. If you think that the Rashis are not mentioned in the Vedic literature I have nothing to say. You live with your own Vedic knowledge.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum[WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the SiderealWAVES-Vedic Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 4:25 AM

 

 

I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.Here are my observations:SB said: A) Rashi in Veda 1)Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV 6.47.5; 8.93.1), In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA" - creator of rains, since offering of Soma leads to rains!Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha explanation of it is still not resolved.SB further said:Mithun (RV 3.39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7).Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.Where does one get the

Rashi?sAyaNa describes as kanyA=kamanIyA.Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which justifies the alternate meaning.If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))SB further said; There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and Vasishtha were born. The verse is : सतà¥à¤°à¥‡ ह जाताविषिता नमोभिः कà¥à¤®à¥à¤­à¥‡ रेतः सिषिचतà¥à¤ƒ समानम | ततो ह मान उदियाय मधà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤ ततो जातं रषिमाहà¥à¤°à¥à¤µà¤¸à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤ à¤® || (RV 7.33.13) Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to interpret the

metaphors properly. Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as Meena Rashi in the Veda. I fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of the verses. If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the explanation of the rest? The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?) SB frurther said:2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha

(Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is : Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5) [ Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH' means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr. Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. -- With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

(859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

-- --

With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

Web: www.msc.uky.edu/sohum