Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 WAVES-Vedic , Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote: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 Veda1)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 explainsit as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Somaleads 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 parokShaexplanation 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 whichjustifies 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 andVasishtha were born. The verse is :????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????????? || (RV 7.33.13)Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya wasborn from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So weunderstand 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 Rashisin Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena asMeena 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 ofthe verses./*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is theexplanation 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? Withoutthat, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion offaith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?) *SB frurther said:/2) Rashi in Vedanga JyotishaMeena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur VedangaJyotisha-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 versein my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gavethe 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--- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Everybody please read guts of Sunil Bhattacharjya Those verses had been produced by him and third person refuted it But he will keep on saying that he had provided those verses where Rashi were mentioned he doesnt forward those mails where he get answers hinducivilization , " jyotirved . " <jyotirved wrote: WAVES-Vedic , Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: 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 : ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????????? || (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 --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Such is the MAYA of our present belonging and experiences that we keep reaching for a stronger root springing out of the muddy landslide that we slide down and reach out for anything that sticks out and if we do not manage to catch it and latch on - we curse and blame our inadequacies on to that which reached out and made itself available. Even the radix that was sticking out somewhere down the mudslide! Actually -- it is very easy to stop sliding down and seek others! Just look down -- get to know your feet, the right shoe size and know where you STAND -- even if your head is up int the clouds where you want or wish to BE! vedic astrology , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > Quote > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > Unquote > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum > Cc: waves-vedic > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum edu> wrote: > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum edu> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > Once again, thank you. > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > Respected members, > I am a new comer to this forum. > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > Best wishes > K K Mehrotra > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > 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 : > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Shri Harimalla, 1) Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about the Dharma. 2) Why do you say as follows? Quote Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? Unquote Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. Sincerley, S.K.Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas.Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform?Thank you,Hari Malla, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a> Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> WAVES-Vedic> Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ...> Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM> > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,> > 1)> Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > Quote> > "To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar"> > Unquote> > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that.> > 2)> You also said as follows"> > Quote> > "However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums"> > Unquote> > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.> > 3)> Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship?> > 4)> As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.> You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses.> > 5)> If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?> > 6)> I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.> > Sincerely,> > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>> [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> WAVES-Vedic> Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM> > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,> If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know "parokshya" meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have "pratakshya" knowledge of the Vedas either.> > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any "parokshya" meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such "hidden" meanings!> I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have "parokshya" knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?> Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site.> > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be "paroskhya" in the Vedas.> Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.> It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.> With regaqrds,> Yours sincerely,> K K Mehrotra> > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> >> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that.> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:> > > > Quote> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:> > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.> > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.> > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!> > > > Unquote> > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : "paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah", which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes.> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the "Vedanga Jyotisha" is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes.> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.> > > > > > Sincerely,> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > "Avinash Sathaye" <sohum@>> > Cc: waves-vedic> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji,> > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES!> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.> > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.> > K. K. Mehrotra> > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:> > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > "kk.mehrotra" <kk.mehrotra@ >> > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM> > > > > > Dear Malhotraji,> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.> > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:> > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.> > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.> > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!> > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational.> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.> > > > Once again, thank you.> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > Respected members,> > I am a new comer to this forum. > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye.> > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > Best wishes> > K K Mehrotra> > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:> > > > 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 :> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |> > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Dear friends, In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. Quote apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH uchchAvacha.n daivayukta.n rahasyaM divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatruH sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya (udyoga parvan) Unquote Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations.It runs as follows, " Astronomers have divided the sky into 88 constellations...the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras.The scientist are not used to that. Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts....Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. OK then good bye for today.Take care. Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Shri Harimalla, > > > 1) > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about > the Dharma. > > 2) > Why do you say as follows? > > Quote > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > Unquote > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > Sincerley, > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > Thank you, > Hari Malla > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > 1) > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > Quote > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > Unquote > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > 2) > > You also said as follows " > > > > Quote > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > Unquote > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > 3) > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > 4) > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > 5) > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > 6) > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > With regaqrds, > > Yours sincerely, > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > Respected members, > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > Best wishes > > > K K Mehrotra > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Shri Harimalla, Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. S.K.Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ...the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. OK then good bye for today.Take care. Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimalla, > > > 1) > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about > the Dharma. > > 2) > Why do you say as follows? > > Quote > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > Unquote > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > Sincerley, > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > Thank you, > Hari Malla > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > 1) > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > Quote > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > Unquote > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > 2) > > You also said as follows " > > > > Quote > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > Unquote > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > 3) > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > 4) > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > 5) > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > 6) > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > With regaqrds, > > Yours sincerely, > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > Respected members, > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > Best wishes > > > K K Mehrotra > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Hi Sunil ji, Nice reply to him. I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. He says - My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! Regards --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM Shri Harimalla, Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. S.K.Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ...the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. OK then good bye for today.Take care. Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimalla, > > > 1) > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about > the Dharma. > > 2) > Why do you say as follows? > > Quote > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > Unquote > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > Sincerley, > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > Thank you, > Hari Malla > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > 1) > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > Quote > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > Unquote > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > 2) > > You also said as follows " > > > > Quote > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > Unquote > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > 3) > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > 4) > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > 5) > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > 6) > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > With regaqrds, > > Yours sincerely, > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > Respected members, > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > Best wishes > > > K K Mehrotra > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Dear friends, In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. Quote apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAHuchchAvacha.n daivayukta.n rahasyaM divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM chatathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatruH sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya(udyoga parvan) Unquote Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Dear Sunil-Da, For most -- if not all human beings, low-moderate-high -- what would be the relevance of these Rashis that we keep hearing about on and on? While many " academics " contest and doubt and critique: the true zodiac and its source and implications -- FIRST-AIDERS carry on! Kind of like in the real world where DOCTORS and NURSES are scarce but HEALERS ABOUND & OVERFLOW -- Through MA's BOUNTY! ;-) , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear friends, > > In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. > > Quote > > apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA > bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH > sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA > nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH > uchchAvacha.n daivayukta.n rahasyaM > divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA > kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM > nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha > tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatruH > sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya > (udyoga parvan) > > Unquote > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Dear Rohini, You have asked a very pertinent question. The knowledge of our ancient rishis, particularly in Jyotish shastra, is being maligned by some haters of Hindu religion saying that the Indians learnt astronomy and astrology from Babylonia and the Greeks. This is far from the truth. Astronmy is physical science and astrolgy is the esotertic branch of the Jyotish shastra, and its effects are not tangibly evident. Even those who think that astrology indeed has a sound basis cannot ignore the fact there are quacks, ie. fake practitioners of astrology, who spoil the name of astrology. So one may believe or not in astrology but one cannot deny the facts that both astronomy and astrology were well developed before the start of the Kali yuga, as we see the mention of the Rashi, Naksahatras and astrological predictions in the Vedas, Vedanga-Jyotisha, Puranas and the Mahabharata. The main aim of the Kaul group is to destroy the Hindu astrology. The ircalendar-reform program is just an eyewash. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote: Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Saturday, June 20, 2009, 8:23 PM Dear Sunil-Da, For most -- if not all human beings, low-moderate- high -- what would be the relevance of these Rashis that we keep hearing about on and on? While many " academics " contest and doubt and critique: the true zodiac and its source and implications -- FIRST-AIDERS carry on! Kind of like in the real world where DOCTORS and NURSES are scarce but HEALERS ABOUND & OVERFLOW -- Through MA's BOUNTY! ;-) , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear friends, > > In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. > > Quote > > apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA > bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH > sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA > nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH > uchchAvacha. n daivayukta.n rahasyaM > divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA > kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM > nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha > tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatru H > sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya > (udyoga parvan) > > Unquote > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Dear Rohiiji, Bhattacharjyaji is incapable of understanding that ayanamsa is the error between the stippulated and the actual starting points of observations of the universe and the cosmos.This error goes on increasing with the passage of time.This error has a tolerable limit, and over a certain limit excessive ayanamsa destroys both jyotish shastra and Dharma shastras.This limit has laready been crossed and the remedy is certain readjsutments.This is like undergoing surgery to cure the ailment. When people suggest surgery to cure the ailment,he thinks,it will destroy the system itself.Many people are afraid of surgery, thinking it will kill them. He suffers from this type of psychosis,and is scared that those who want to bring back the purity of the shastras back, are bent upon destroying astrology itself.Please judge the rest by yourself. Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > You have asked a very pertinent question. The knowledge of our ancient rishis, particularly in Jyotish shastra, is being maligned by some haters of Hindu religion saying that the Indians learnt astronomy and astrology from Babylonia and the Greeks. This is far from the truth. Astronmy is physical science and astrolgy is the esotertic branch of the Jyotish shastra, and its effects are not tangibly evident. Even those who think that astrology indeed has a sound basis cannot ignore the fact there are quacks, ie. fake practitioners of astrology, who spoil the name of astrology. So one may believe or not in astrology but one cannot deny the facts that both astronomy and astrology were well developed before the start of the Kali yuga, as we see the mention of the Rashi, Naksahatras and astrological predictions in the Vedas, Vedanga-Jyotisha, Puranas and the Mahabharata. > > The main aim of the Kaul group is to destroy the Hindu astrology. The ircalendar-reform program is just an eyewash. > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote: > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 8:23 PM > > Dear Sunil-Da, > > For most -- if not all human beings, low-moderate- high -- what would be the relevance of these Rashis that we keep hearing about on and on? > > While many " academics " contest and doubt and critique: the true zodiac and its source and implications -- FIRST-AIDERS carry on! > > Kind of like in the real world where DOCTORS and NURSES are scarce but HEALERS ABOUND & OVERFLOW -- Through MA's BOUNTY! ;-) > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear friends, > > > > In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. > > > > Quote > > > > apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA > > bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH > > sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA > > nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH > > uchchAvacha. n daivayukta.n rahasyaM > > divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA > > kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM > > nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha > > tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatru H > > sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya > > (udyoga parvan) > > > > Unquote > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 What these anti-astrological people like Mr Hari Malla and Mr AK Kaul are doing in astrological fora ? -VJ ============= === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Cc: ; vedic astrology Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:44:07 PM [vedic astrology] Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Shri Harimalla, 1) Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about the Dharma. 2) Why do you say as follows? Quote Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? Unquote Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. Sincerley, S.K.Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? Thank you, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > WAVES-Vedic > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > 1) > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > Quote > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > Unquote > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > 2) > You also said as follows " > > Quote > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > Unquote > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > 3) > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > 4) > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > 5) > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > 6) > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > WAVES-Vedic > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > With regaqrds, > Yours sincerely, > K K Mehrotra > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > Quote > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > Unquote > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > Cc: waves-vedic > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > Respected members, > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > Best wishes > > K K Mehrotra > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > 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 : > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Sunil Da, Mriga-chakra is the zodiacal chakra starting from Mriga-shiraa nakshatra which defines the month Maargashirsha or Agrahaayana according to Suryasiddhanta. Mahabharata (Gita) tells us that " among months, Agrahaayana stands for Lord Krishna in the form of God " . Agrahaayana literally means " agra or foremost in the haayana or year " . Its synonymn Maargashirsha also means " at the head of the (zodiacal) path " . Suryasiddhantic computations prove that Creation (Srishti) began on the New Moon of the month Agrahaayana/Maargashirsha (although Siddhanta Shiromani of Bhaskar uses another Suryasiddhantic reckoning and concludes that the first month of Creation was Chaitra). I have an exhaustive note from Mahabharata about its references to Jyotisha. There are numerous references to phalita (predictive) astrology in MBh. -VJ ===================== ========== vedic astrology , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Friends, > > If some scholar proves that the Mrigachakra is not Rashichakra and tell us what the Mrigachakra really means then why should anybody feel bad. It will only be an occasion to feel happy to discover the truth. Only fools take these things as prestige question and not the real seekers of truth. We are always eager to know what is the truth. Some idiots hurl dirty abuses when they lose debates but not everybody. Just hurling abuses do not solve any problem. I tended to agree with Shri Sarvesh Tiwari's interpretation that Mrigachakra is Zodiac in the quoted verse from the Mahabharata as the verse says that the Brahman Jyotishis made astrological predictions on the basis of the planetary configuration and mentiong the Mrigachakra. Shri Sarvesh Tiwari wrote as follows: > > Quote > > notice the usage of the term " mR^igachakra " which would be the literal meaning of " Zodiac " . Also notice that the reference talks of brAhmaNa jyotiShi-s predicting the imminent victory for the pANDava-s and rout of the kaurava-s on basis of the muhUrta, relative positions of nakShatra-s etc. It also mentions, at least in a third person testimony, of the faith people might already have in this field when these lines were written -- here it says that 'with such prediction yudhiShThira was already considering his objectives met.' > > Unquote > > If anybody tells us (1) what the Mrigachakra is, (2) that Mrigachakra is not the Rashi-chakra and (3) how the Mrigachakra is related to predictive astrology, then I am sure all the Hindus including me, will be grateful to him and I shall also inform Shri Sarvesh Tiwari. The above verse anyway proves that predictive astrology was used in the Mahabharata days and soastrology could not have been imported from Babylonia and the Greeks. I am sure AKK and his cronies must be very sad about this. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > that theI shall glady forward the reply to Shri Sarvesh Tiwari, who said that Mrigachakra is Rashi Chakra.ant > > --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Anup Khanna khannaanup32 wrote: > > > Anup Khanna khannaanup32 > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > vedic astrology > Sunday, June 21, 2009, 12:21 PM > > Who will post the answer of this, SB.Ppl loose debate but it doesnt mean one should hide the answers but it doesnt matter as everybody can follow footprints and can reach to the answers as all ppl know how to use internet and how to reach the destination of discussions. > > Oh let me tell all ppl answer of this:- > > Mrigachakra is related to nks, not to Rashis.Please dont do adharma and dont play with Hinduism. > > Half knowledge is very injurious for discussion, you know. So it is better to listen instead of speaking and speaking and speaking > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology, vedic astrology@ . com > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 1:08 AM > > Dear friends, > > In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. > > Quote > > apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA > bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH > sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA > nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH > uchchAvacha. n daivayukta.n rahasyaM > divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA > kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM > nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha > tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatru H > sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya > (udyoga parvan) > > Unquote > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Thank you Vinay for the clarification. -SKB --- On Sun, 6/21/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote: vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 [vedic astrology] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal vedic astrology Sunday, June 21, 2009, 7:43 PM Sunil Da, Mriga-chakra is the zodiacal chakra starting from Mriga-shiraa nakshatra which defines the month Maargashirsha or Agrahaayana according to Suryasiddhanta. Mahabharata (Gita) tells us that " among months, Agrahaayana stands for Lord Krishna in the form of God " . Agrahaayana literally means " agra or foremost in the haayana or year " . Its synonymn Maargashirsha also means " at the head of the (zodiacal) path " . Suryasiddhantic computations prove that Creation (Srishti) began on the New Moon of the month Agrahaayana/ Maargashirsha (although Siddhanta Shiromani of Bhaskar uses another Suryasiddhantic reckoning and concludes that the first month of Creation was Chaitra). I have an exhaustive note from Mahabharata about its references to Jyotisha. There are numerous references to phalita (predictive) astrology in MBh. -VJ ============ ========= ========== vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > Friends, > > If some scholar proves that the Mrigachakra is not Rashichakra and tell us what the Mrigachakra really means then why should anybody feel bad. It will only be an occasion to feel happy to discover the truth. Only fools take these things as prestige question and not the real seekers of truth. We are always eager to know what is the truth. Some idiots hurl dirty abuses when they lose debates but not everybody. Just hurling abuses do not solve any problem. I tended to agree with Shri Sarvesh Tiwari's interpretation that Mrigachakra is Zodiac in the quoted verse from the Mahabharata as the verse says that the Brahman Jyotishis made astrological predictions on the basis of the planetary configuration and mentiong the Mrigachakra. Shri Sarvesh Tiwari wrote as follows: > > Quote > > notice the usage of the term " mR^igachakra " which would be the literal meaning of " Zodiac " . Also notice that the reference talks of brAhmaNa jyotiShi-s predicting the imminent victory for the pANDava-s and rout of the kaurava-s on basis of the muhUrta, relative positions of nakShatra-s etc. It also mentions, at least in a third person testimony, of the faith people might already have in this field when these lines were written -- here it says that 'with such prediction yudhiShThira was already considering his objectives met.' > > Unquote > > If anybody tells us (1) what the Mrigachakra is, (2) that Mrigachakra is not the Rashi-chakra and (3) how the Mrigachakra is related to predictive astrology, then I am sure all the Hindus including me, will be grateful to him and I shall also inform Shri Sarvesh Tiwari. The above verse anyway proves that predictive astrology was used in the Mahabharata days and soastrology could not have been imported from Babylonia and the Greeks. I am sure AKK and his cronies must be very sad about this. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > that theI shall glady forward the reply to Shri Sarvesh Tiwari, who said that Mrigachakra is Rashi Chakra.ant > > --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Anup Khanna khannaanup32@ ... wrote: > > > Anup Khanna khannaanup32@ ... > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > vedic astrology > Sunday, June 21, 2009, 12:21 PM > > Who will post the answer of this, SB.Ppl loose debate but it doesnt mean one should hide the answers but it doesnt matter as everybody can follow footprints and can reach to the answers as all ppl know how to use internet and how to reach the destination of discussions. > > Oh let me tell all ppl answer of this:- > > Mrigachakra is related to nks, not to Rashis.Please dont do adharma and dont play with Hinduism. > > Half knowledge is very injurious for discussion, you know. So it is better to listen instead of speaking and speaking and speaking > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology, vedic astrology@ . com > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 1:08 AM > > Dear friends, > > In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. > > Quote > > apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA > bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH > sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA > nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH > uchchAvacha. n daivayukta.n rahasyaM > divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA > kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM > nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha > tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatru H > sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya > (udyoga parvan) > > Unquote > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Friends, If some scholar proves that the Mrigachakra is not Rashichakra and tell us what the Mrigachakra really means then why should anybody feel bad. It will only be an occasion to feel happy to discover the truth. Only fools take these things as prestige question and not the real seekers of truth. We are always eager to know what is the truth. Some idiots hurl dirty abuses when they lose debates but not everybody. Just hurling abuses do not solve any problem. I tended to agree with Shri Sarvesh Tiwari's interpretation that Mrigachakra is Zodiac in the quoted verse from the Mahabharata as the verse says that the Brahman Jyotishis made astrological predictions on the basis of the planetary configuration and mentiong the Mrigachakra. Shri Sarvesh Tiwari wrote as follows: Quote notice the usage of the term "mR^igachakra" which would be the literal meaning of "Zodiac". Also notice that the reference talks of brAhmaNa jyotiShi-s predicting the imminent victory for the pANDava-s and rout of the kaurava-s on basis of the muhUrta, relative positions of nakShatra-s etc. It also mentions, at least in a third person testimony, of the faith people might already have in this field when these lines were written -- here it says that 'with such prediction yudhiShThira was already considering his objectives met.' Unquote If anybody tells us (1) what the Mrigachakra is, (2) that Mrigachakra is not the Rashi-chakra and (3) how the Mrigachakra is related to predictive astrology, then I am sure all the Hindus including me, will be grateful to him and I shall also inform Shri Sarvesh Tiwari. The above verse anyway proves that predictive astrology was used in the Mahabharata days and soastrology could not have been imported from Babylonia and the Greeks. I am sure AKK and his cronies must be very sad about this. Sincerely Sunil K. Bhattacharjya that theI shall glady forward the reply to Shri Sarvesh Tiwari, who said that Mrigachakra is Rashi Chakra.ant--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32 wrote: Anup Khanna <khannaanup32Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Siderealvedic astrology Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 12:21 PM Who will post the answer of this, SB.Ppl loose debate but it doesnt mean one should hide the answers but it doesnt matter as everybody can follow footprints and can reach to the answers as all ppl know how to use internet and how to reach the destination of discussions. Oh let me tell all ppl answer of this:- Mrigachakra is related to nks, not to Rashis.Please dont do adharma and dont play with Hinduism. Half knowledge is very injurious for discussion, you know. So it is better to listen instead of speaking and speaking and speaking --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>[vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the SiderealCc: ancient_indian_ astrology, vedic astrologySunday, 21 June, 2009, 1:08 AMDear friends, In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following verse from the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in the Mahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac. Quote apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAHuchchAvacha. n daivayukta.n rahasyaM divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM chatathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatru H sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya(udyoga parvan) Unquote Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 --- On Mon, 6/22/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 wrote: vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16[vedic astrology] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Siderealvedic astrologyDate: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:43 AM Sunil Da,Mriga-chakra is the zodiacal chakra starting from Mriga-shiraa nakshatrawhich defines the month Maargashirsha or Agrahaayana according toSuryasiddhanta. Mahabharata (Gita) tells us that "among months,Agrahaayana stands for Lord Krishna in the form of God". Agrahaayanaliterally means "agra or foremost in the haayana or year". Its synonymnMaargashirsha also means "at the head of the (zodiacal) path".Suryasiddhantic computations prove that Creation (Srishti) began on theNew Moon of the month Agrahaayana/ Maargashirsha (although SiddhantaShiromani of Bhaskar uses another Suryasiddhantic reckoning andconcludes that the first month of Creation was Chaitra).I have an exhaustive note from Mahabharata about its references toJyotisha. There are numerous references to phalita (predictive)astrology in MBh.-VJ============ ========= ==========vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>>> Friends,>> If some scholar proves that the Mrigachakra is not Rashichakra andtell us what the Mrigachakra really means then why should anybody feelbad. It will only be an occasion to feel happy to discover the truth.Only fools take these things as prestige question and not the realseekers of truth. We are always eager to know what is the truth. Someidiots hurl dirty abuses when they lose debates but not everybody. Justhurling abuses do not solve any problem. I tended to agree with ShriSarvesh Tiwari's interpretation that Mrigachakra is Zodiac in the quotedverse from the Mahabharata as the verse says that the Brahman Jyotishismade astrological predictions on the basis of the planetaryconfiguration and mentiong the Mrigachakra. Shri Sarvesh Tiwari wrote asfollows:>> Quote>> notice the usage of the term "mR^igachakra" which would be the literalmeaning of "Zodiac". Also notice that the reference talks of brAhmaNajyotiShi-s predicting the imminent victory for the pANDava-s and rout ofthe kaurava-s on basis of the muhUrta, relative positions of nakShatra-setc. It also mentions, at least in a third person testimony, of thefaith people might already have in this field when these lines werewritten -- here it says that 'with such prediction yudhiShThira wasalready considering his objectives met..'>> Unquote>> If anybody tells us (1) what the Mrigachakra is, (2) that Mrigachakrais not the Rashi-chakra and (3) how the Mrigachakra is related topredictive astrology, then I am sure all the Hindus including me, willbe grateful to him and I shall also inform Shri Sarvesh Tiwari. Theabove verse anyway proves that predictive astrology was used in theMahabharata days and soastrology could not have been imported fromBabylonia and the Greeks. I am sure AKK and his cronies must be very sadabout this.>> Sincerely>> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya>>>>>> that theI shall glady forward the reply to Shri Sarvesh Tiwari, whosaid that Mrigachakra is Rashi Chakra.ant>> --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Anup Khanna khannaanup32@ ... wrote:>>> Anup Khanna khannaanup32@ ...> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedicliterature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> vedic astrology> Sunday, June 21, 2009, 12:21 PM>>>>>>>>> Who will post the answer of this, SB.Ppl loose debate but it doesntmean one should hide the answers but it doesnt matter as everybody canfollow footprints and can reach to the answers as all ppl know how touse internet and how to reach the destination of discussions.>> Oh let me tell all ppl answer of this:->> Mrigachakra is related to nks, not to Rashis.Please dont do adharmaand dont play with Hinduism.>> Half knowledge is very injurious for discussion, you know. So it isbetter to listen instead of speaking and speaking and speaking>> --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > wrote:>> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>> [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in Vedicliterature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology, vedic astrology > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 1:08 AM>> Dear friends,>> In another forum Shri Sarvesh Tiwari had quoted te following versefrom the Mahabharata to show that Astrology was practised in theMahabharata times. Mrigachakra is the Zodiac.>> Quote>> apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA> bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH> sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA> nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH> uchchAvacha. n daivayukta.n rahasyaM> divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA> kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM> nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha> tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatru H> sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya> (udyoga parvan)>> Unquote>> Regards,>> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. Hari Malla , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi wrote: > > Hi Sunil ji, > > Nice reply to him. > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > He says - > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > Regards > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > 2) > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > Thank you, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. My sincere regards and Best of Luck Sidharth --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. Hari Malla , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi > wrote: > > Hi Sunil ji, > > Nice reply to him. > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > He says - > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > Regards > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > 2) > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > Thank you, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this topic. Thank you DARLING. Story begins from here. < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? > Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE. After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa,Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal. So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS. I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it. Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about it). Thank you very much. < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. > If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS. Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying. vedic astrology , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Rishi Rahulji, > ? > Have you noticed the following line. > ? > Quote > ? > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system. > > Unquote > ? > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. > ? > Best wishes, > ? > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > ? > ? > ? > > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961 wrote: > > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961 > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM > > > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul > > There is no edit option here, unfortunately. > > RishiRahul > > vedic astrology > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530 > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Dear Brother, > > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!! > > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'. > > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU. > > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to gain from anyone. > > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and who says what, like many do. > > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever. > > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading previous post and the one before. > > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path. > > RishiRahuk > > vedic astrology > > khannaanup32@ > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700 > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Dear Shri RishiRahulji, > > You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'. > > So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water. > > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and what is of others. > > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system. > > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY. > > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED. > > WE ARE GREAT ! > > Thank you very much > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote: > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology> > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM > > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here? > > I wonder!! > > vedic astrology > > khannaanup32@ > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700 > > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > I have seen this mail on some other forums. > > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself. > > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with you. > > Sincerely > > k. k. mehrotra > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > ? > > > 1) > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > ? > > > Quote > > > ? > > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > ? > > > Unquote > > > ? > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > ? > > > 2) > > > You also said as follows " > > > ? > > > Quote > > > ? > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > ? > > > Unquote > > > ? > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > ? > > > 3) > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > ? > > > 4) > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses. > > > ? > > > 5) > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > ? > > > 6) > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > ? > > > Sincerely, > > > ? > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya? > > > ? > > > ? > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > With regaqrds, > > > Yours sincerely, > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > ? > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > ? > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > ? > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > ? > > > > Quote > > > > ? > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > ? > > > > Unquote > > > > ? > > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > ? > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my firm?interpretation . > > > > ? > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes. > > > > ? > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > ? > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > ? > > > > ?Sincerely, > > > > ? > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya? > > > > ? > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > Respected members, > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > Best wishes > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > --- End forwarded message --- > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter http://cricket. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Dear Sidharthji, Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same. My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. Regards, Hari Malla , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi wrote: > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > My sincere regards and > Best of Luck > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > He says - > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned > about > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > > > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Dear Dembiji, It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM Dear Sidharthji, Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same. My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. Regards, Hari Malla , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi > wrote: > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > My sincere regards and > Best of Luck > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > He says - > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned > about > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > > > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Dear Shri Mehrotra, 1) Who calls the Puranas as the fifth Veda At the outset I wish to clarify that the Chandogya and Brhadaranyak Upanishads called the Puranas as the Fifth Veda and I have accepted that unquestioningly. Please feel assured that I am not forcing you to accept. I even do not know whether you are a Hindu or not. Please do not accept if you don't want to. 2) The meaning of "Sidereal Rashi" "Sider" in Latin, to my knowledge, means star. Sidereal is a word derived from "Sider" and it means "related to constellations or stars". In Jyotish shastra each of the 27 nakshatras are divided into four quarters and thus the 27 Nakshatras make 108 quarters. The 108 quarters are distributed among the 12 rashis and thereby each rashi has 9 quarters. I do not know if you learnt Sanskrit. The Puranas are in Sanskrtit and their English translations are also available. Sometime back, in these groups, I posted the Sanskrit verses and you might have seen that. Those verses show that the Rashis have the fixed Nakshatras within them. Thus the Rashis are sidereal. If you have any doubt please do come back. You have so far not told me about your educational background and it is necessary for a teacher to know his student's educational attainments partiularly in subjects related to which the questions are being asked. 3) Identity of Anup khanna Anup Khanna is known for sending mails with sexual abuses. He was recently banned from one group for doing that. He said in one of his mails to me that I am a pimp my own family. He thinks everybody is like himself. He also thinks that the abuses are the best arguments. According to the scholar Shri Vinay Jha he is an imposter using a pseudonym and his real name is Prashant Pandey. He has not told me if he is the same as the Prashant Pandey, who is one of the moderators of the Hinducalendar , owned by A.K.Kaul. 4) Kaul's name infinite number of times. I will correct your language. It is several times and not infinite number of times.Sometimes circumstances bring people to limelight. Kaul is famous (or infamous?) today by virtue of his relentless struggle to deprive the Hindus of the glory of pioneering the Jyotyish shastra (both Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology) by insisting that the Indians learnt this subject from the Greeks. This is in line with the claims of David Pingree. who in turn was influenced by Max Muller's Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), according to which the Aryans invaded India in the 15th century BCE and the Vedas including the Brahmanas were from the period between 1200 BCE to 600 BCE. Of course many, including me, do not believe Pingree to be right as the discovery of the river Saraswati puts back the antiquity of the Vedic literature to around 3000 BCE and earlier. Now conming to repetition of name you may remember that Kasab, the terrorist, was in the news and we used to see his name practically everyday in the newspapers. So pleasedo not drag Lord Narayana's holy name in this connection. 5) Rashis in Paroksha manner. You are wrong in using the word revelation and it appears that you are using it deliberately in a sarcastic way, Did I ever say that the Rashis were revealed to me in a Paroksha way? Don't you think that you should apologige for your this indiscretion? We Hindus say that the Vedas were revealed to the ancient seers. I did not claim to belong to that exalted category. I read the Upanishadic verse that the Vedas do have the Paroksha meaning and that the Paroksha meaning is more appropriate than the Pratyaksha meanings. Instead of being happy at knowing this you are becoming uncomfortable. From the Puranas I know about the Kumbha Rashi and from the Hindu astrology I know that Varuna is the ruler of Satabhisa, the central Nakshatra of the Kumbha Rashi. Equipped with this knowledge I could relate the word Kumbha in Veda with Kumbha Rashi. Further it appeared to me that it is weird to think how could Agastya be born in a pitcher when he had his mother, who was called Prithvi or Havirbhoo. If you do not agree to what I say then you can plainly say that you don't agree with me. That's all. Is there any need to pass sarcastic comments? You did not purchase that information which I gave so you have not lost anything even if you consider it useless. If you do not believe in what the Upanishad defines then can you really claim to be Hindu (or are you one in reality?) Why are you getting muddled up with Wilkinson? Now are you clear that I never said about any revelatrion? 6) INSA INSA stands for Indian national Science Academy. The Vedanga Jyotisha was published in their "Indian Journal of History of Science, Vol.19, No. 4, Supplement. Their website is www.insa.ac.in Now please give me the mail number in which you claim you demanded from me (of course must have been for free supply) about the complete website of the INSA for finding the Vedanga Jyotisha. If you still call me that I chickened out you are welcome to say7 so. But what about your failing to tell me abourt your attainments or qualifications to pass your judgement about my Vedic scholarship? Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 6/24/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote: kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra[WAVES-Vedic] Fw: RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the SiderealWAVES-Vedic Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 2:19 AM Dear Dr. Bhattacharjya,Pl. tell me what sidereal rashis are and how they are found in the puranas and which puranas.Is this quotaion for Vayu Purana any different from other Puranas, including Bhagawata Purana, which you call fifth Veda?I do not know Shri Anup Khanna. I am not a member of jyotisha groups and have no knowledge about his forwarding the mails. But I saw your mails at other sites and your mentioning "Kaul" infinite number of times, as if you are doing the japa of Narayana's name!I had requested you to let me know as to how the rashis that were "revealed" to you in a "parokshya" manneer could be different from the ones "revealed" to Dr. Wilkinson through his Tapasya and yoga. Either of you two is not having a complete "revelation" . But you chose not to answer that question.I had also requested you to give me the complete address of the website of INSA that gives the mantra from the Vedanga Jyotisha of Mina Rashi. You have not done that either.Since you are not answering my questions, I think you have chickened out, because you prefer only to answer those points that are convenient to you.Best wishes,K K MehrotraWAVES-Vedic, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> Dear Shri Mehrotra,> > See how your reply is being sent across to the other groups by the followers of Kaul, who does not accept the presence of the Sidereal Rashis in the Puranas inspite of my quoting the verses from the Vamana purana. Earlier the replies of Sathayae was similarly posted by Kaul himself to other groups and Sathaye did not object to that, to my knowledge. I ony wish that you should not have chickened out (or is it fretting or you do not have any reply?) and replied. We are discussing about the presence of Rashi in the ancient Indian Jyotish shastra and I do not think it wrong if more people come to know about our views.> > Best wishes> > Sunil KI. Bhattacharjya> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...> wrote:> > > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...>> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> vedic astrology> Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:42 AM> > > > > > > > > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,> > You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.> > So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and what is of others.> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.> > WE ARE GREAT !> > Thank you very much> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> "vedic astrology" <vedic astrology>> Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?> > I wonder!!> > vedic astrology> khannaanup32@ > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700> [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > WAVES-Vedic, "kk.mehrotra" <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with you.> > Sincerely> > k. k. mehrotra> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,> > > ?> > > 1)> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;> > > ?> > > Quote> > > ?> > > ?"To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar"> > > ?> > > Unquote> > > ?> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that.> > > ?> > > 2)> > > You also said as follows"> > > ?> > > Quote> > > ?> > > "However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums"> > > ?> > > Unquote> > > ?> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.> > > ?> > > 3)> > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship?> > > ?> > > 4)> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.> > > ?> > > 5)> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?> > > ?> > > 6)> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.> > > ?> > > Sincerely,> > > ?> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?> > > ?> > > ?> > >> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:> > >> > >> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > > WAVES-Vedic> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know "parokshya" meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have "pratakshya" knowledge of the Vedas either.> > >> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.> > >> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!> > >> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any "parokshya" meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such "hidden" meanings!> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have "parokshya" knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site.> > >> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be "paroskhya" in the Vedas.> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.> > > With regaqrds,> > > Yours sincerely,> > > K K Mehrotra> > >> > >> > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,> > > > ?> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later.> > > > ?> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that.> > > > ?> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:> > > > ?> > > > Quote> > > > ?> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!> > > > ?> > > > Unquote> > > > ?> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says?:?"paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah", which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.> > > > ?> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .> > > > ?> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the "Vedanga Jyotisha" is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes.> > > > ?> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .> > > > ?> > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.> > > >> > > > ?> > > > ?Sincerely,> > > > ?> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?> > > > ?> > > >> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > > > "Avinash Sathaye" <sohum@>> > > > Cc: waves-vedic> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Sathayeji,> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens only with WAVES!> > > >> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.> > > >> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.> > > > K. K. Mehrotra> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > > > "kk.mehrotra" <kk.mehrotra@ >> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Malhotraji,> > > >> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!> > > >> > > >> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational.> > > >> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.> > > >> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.> > > >> > > > Once again, thank you.> > > >> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:> > > > Respected members,> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye.> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making!> > > > Best wishes> > > > K K Mehrotra> > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:> > > >> > > > 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 :> > > >> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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> > > >> > >> > --- End forwarded message ---> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter http://cricket. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Dear Hareshji, For the past 1 month, there is too much of tension between me and my husband. Everything was fine all these months. He has lot of mood swings. Can you please see if there is any light ? He is alright for 3 days and then again becomes depressed for 1 week. He is having too many problems from his dad's side. His details are: Shiva Sohan , Bangalore, 22 April 1974 1:00 AM My details are: Gayatri , Chennai 28th May 1978 6:45 PM Thanks, Gayatri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Sidharth Dembi Ji, <<< we are just engaging in useless discussions. >>> True. Mr Hari Malla wasted my time too, and I found that he has no respect for mathematical proofs. I stopped responding. -VJ ============================= ==== ________________________________ Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:14:52 AM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. My sincere regards and Best of Luck Sidharth --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. Hari Malla , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi > wrote: > > Hi Sunil ji, > > Nice reply to him. > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > He says - > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > Regards > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > 2) > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > Thank you, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? | > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.