Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear Rohiniranjanji, May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! To my knowledge,precession which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. Regards, Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dinesh-ji, > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > RR > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@> wrote: > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations's star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation's star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation). > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > Love you all > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@> > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > Quote > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Unquote > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > Regards, > > HAri Malla > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear members, I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : Quote Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. Unquote How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM Dear Rohiniranjanji, May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. Regards, Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > Dinesh-ji, > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > RR > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > Love you all > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > Quote > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Unquote > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > Regards, > > HAri Malla > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Malla ji, If indeed you are right and moon does all this, it certainly makes sense why ancient jyotishis gave it so much importance in Jyotish, symbolically and literally! Emotions and perturbations, as opposed to steadfastness and calmness are what create problems, conflicts and distrubances...! To the astrological MOON we must return and *rest* in the arms of MA, in other words! Rohiniranjan , " harimalla " <harimalla wrote: > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precession which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear sir, The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear Rohiniranjanji, Science says so.So must be true.Not only that we have to shift one month for calendar reform because the fullmoon zone has shifted by one full month.Thank you for the careful interest. Regards Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Malla ji, > > If indeed you are right and moon does all this, it certainly makes sense why ancient jyotishis gave it so much importance in Jyotish, symbolically and literally! > > Emotions and perturbations, as opposed to steadfastness and calmness are what create problems, conflicts and distrubances...! > > To the astrological MOON we must return and *rest* in the arms of MA, in other words! > > Rohiniranjan > > , " harimalla@ " <harimalla@> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precession which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear friend, You said: Quote The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. Unauote I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. Sincerely Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM Dear sir, The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear sir, Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear friend, > > You said: > > Quote > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > Unauote > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > Dear sir, > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Malla Ji, The effect of Mesha Rasashi is described in Phalita texts. But it is wrong to consider only the effects of Raashis and forget all other factors. The effect of entire horoscope as a ahole matters, and individual effects of various componets should not be separately used for predictive astrology, because various components effect each other and sometimes cancel each other. Even if you get a perfect software, it will not make you an astrologer. The essence of astrology is phalita, which is gained through gradual experience in judging the cumulative effect of entire horoscope as a whole. Kundali of Jyotisha is same as the Kundali in the body, but both require quite different approaches to study. It is wrong to imagine an one- to-one correspondence between constituents of both kundalis. The inner Kundali is hidden to normal persons and is revealed only after self-purification. The Nadis (rivers) of Veda have three meanings : rivers of the Cosmos(not of the material/physical universe, but of hidden Bhuvaloka), Rivers on the Earth, and Naadis of the Body (Ida = Gangaa, Pingalaa = Yamunaa, Sushumnaa = Sarasvati ; Ida-Pingalaa-Sushumnaa and later and Tantric names, while Gangaa-Yamunaa-Sarasvati are older and Vedic names.). There are 72000 Naadis in the Body. Perhaps same is the number of rivers on the Earth, although I have not found the exact count anywhere. There are 72000 Siddhas. I hope you will not ask me to prove these things, which are not parts of logical science but of practical Yoga. Proof of such things is gained not through discussion but through personal experience by means of Yogic . -VJ ======================= === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:51:23 PM Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear Jhaaji, Namaskar! I would like you to have some patience with me.I agree it is the custom to take only the zodiac signs.I also know that it is the proper thing to do.but to arrive at the exact truth, and dispel confusion I want the discussion to proceed a little further so it is both scientific and traditional. In this way our wrong impression of the truth vanishes.We get the actual knowedge of the truth.The details of explantion you have given is the fact, we all know that.But our concept why it is like that has to be cleared.This will be for the common benefit of all of us. You have said: quote <Astrological effect is determined on the basis of bhaava kundali. There are 12 bhaavas, and Lagna is the starting point and basic reference point. In Siddhanta Jyotisha, Lagna is defined as the Rising Point (in terms of nirayana/sidereal Raashi and degrees) of Ecliptic. Some phalita astrologers having little or no knowledge wrongly define Lagna as rising Point of Raashichakra (computation of bhaavachalita is a laborious task and that is why majority of astr5ologers do not use it and therefore make crude predictions) . If the latter crude definition is used, raashis and nakshatras aroung the Naadi-vritta (great heavenly circle in the plane of Earth's Equatorial Plane) will be astrologically effective, and if former accurate definition is used raashis and nakshatras aroung the Kraanti-vritta (Ecliptic) will be astrologically effective. Although both Naadi- and Kraanti- circles differ from each other, both approaches EXCLUDE all stars & c away from this central circle which is called Zodiac. Only zodiacal groups are known as Raashis and Nakshatras, other groups or constellations are not part of Zodiac and are therefore excluded from predictive astrology.>unquote My question remains, why have other stars been excluded? There is a answer and you know it too.You have also said Lagna is the basic starting point.This is also important to notice because that same mesh rashi becomes all the 12 bhavas as per the Lagna of different persons.So my question is what effect does mesh rashi have on us, when it can represent all the 12 bhavas? Does mesh rashi represent any particular bhaava or sentiment or effect? Or is it just a fixed point on the plane of the eccliptic, just a milestone! Another way to look at it is, we know it is called as bhaava kundali.Then what is kundali,is it same as the kundalini of the yogis or not? Does the 12 bhaava kundali represent the 12 petals of the lotus in the heart known as the anahata chakra in yoga, since the bhaavas (sentiments) are actually in the heart? We are on the verge of discusions which will surely increase our knowledge.So let the discussion proceed and let us hear what other friends say.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Malla Ji, > > I am astonished at your forgetfulness of my reply sent to you on this point. What is your real intention ? You know well that astrological effects of horoscopes are restricted to the zodiac because zodiac is the meeting points of Nakshatras/Raashis and Grahas. > > -VJ > ============ ====== ========== > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> > > Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:24:32 AM > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > Regards, > HAri Malla > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > <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> > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > sincerely yours, > > > HAri Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 What Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji wants to show is already present in wikipedia articles. But what Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ignores is that physical entities in the sky do not produce any astrological effects : can he produce any " scientific " evidence in favour of any astrological property contained by any planet or star ? If not, why he imposes physical science upon astrology, which is a part of Veda and not of physical science. Jyotisha texts define astrological Grahas as in carnations of God and worships them as deities. Mortals cannot see deities without Tapasyaa. Confusing these astrological deities with material planets is destroying astrology. ________________________________ Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra Monday, June 29, 2009 4:36:27 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM Dear Dheengraji, I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: Quote Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? Unquote Awaiting your reply. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > -VJ > ============ ========= = ========= > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > Thank you Sirs > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > <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> > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > sincerely yours, > > HAri Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > & gt% > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Mr Dinesh Dheengra, Your messages were sarcasting from the very beginning, and now your words are simply offensive ( " You dont know about age old things and dont know what you are talking. ..... you dont know about the ancient wisdom. Firstly try to learn how Rashis came in existence. " ) I gave you links about my credentials. My scientific works have been recognized by NASA and IISc (Bangalore) and my works in astrology have been recognized by Indian universities. My softwares are being used for panchanga making by various govt and private institutions, including Shankaracharyas Peetha at Puri. I do not need you certificates. Even after reading my credentials, you use derogatory words about me shows your malice, ignorance and hatred. I am now dropping out of this discussion. As for your wrong statement about " Nakshtras also are stars in the sky " , try to consult some Sanskrit scholar and try to find out the original etymological meaning of Nakshatra (To Reach). I have no interest in teaching uncivil people. Keeping on abusing me, I will not respong further, I am dropping out of this discussion because you have reduced the discussion to personal attacks. This is an astrological forum which you are forgetting. You do not know that the softwares based on physical science are not recognized by official Sanskrit universities of India. My softwares are based on the prescribed syllabus of these universities which are supposed to teach " ancient wisdom " . These universities accfept my software (after a high court decision), but you deem me deficient in 'ancient wisdom " . And as for modern wisdom, the link I sent you shows recognition of my works by world's leading institutions. Are you not attacking me out of jealousy ? What is your achievement in any field of knowledge ?? Talkinbg of astrological effects in physical planets in totally unscientific, and I am surprised that you fail to follow this point : ask any scientist or professor of science whether physical planets possess astrologicasl properties or not. -VJ ========================== ========== ________________________________ Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra Monday, June 29, 2009 4:45:54 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal you sia das following :- Quote:- Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. Unquote Dear Jhaji, I think you dont know about the ancient wisdom. Firstly try to learn how Rashis came in existence.SBji jimself accepted thsose came up by constellation and all know about it. Even Nakshtras also are stars in the sky. Do you accept it or not ?/ Quote : - If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? Unquote. All ppl using softwares which use the data just to get the position of planets then what you are talking, i am not getting it.Even we talk of eclipse and other things then what does that mean.Ra and Ke run to eat Sun and Moon, is it not physical phenomemnon. Quote :- I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. Unquote There is nothing about against the age-old things.You dont know about age old things and dont know what you are talking. Love Dinesh Dheengra --- On Sat, 27/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Saturday, 27 June, 2009, 6:25 PM Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. -VJ ============ ========= = ========= ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear Shri Dheengraji, Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us Thank you Sirs , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > <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> > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > sincerely yours, > HAri Malla > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > 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: > > > > > & gt% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Fine observation Sunil Da ! ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, June 29, 2009 6:10:55 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Great Dheengraji, Good to hear that you want to include all the constellations in the Jyotish shastra. Hope you will come with the complete scheme as to how to implement the use of all the constellations in astronomy and astrology. The Hindu Jyotish shastra includes both astronomy and astrology. You may have to rewrite the entire Hindu astronomy and astrology and probably correct all the literature.. Otherwise what is the utility of any such work? But if you can make a scientifically proven astrology work the astrology haters will also vanish overnight. It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. All the best and eagerly waiting for your proposed epoch-making work. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 4:06 AM Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM Dear Dheengraji, I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: Quote Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? Unquote Awaiting your reply. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > -VJ > ============ ========= = ========= > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > Thank you Sirs > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > <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> > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > sincerely yours, > > HAri Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > & gt% > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 It is wrong to say that even constellation stars by which our constellations have been made are quite away from Zodiac, because Zodiac is not the ecliptic exactly, but the entire band through which planets traverse, and this band is +9 to -9 degrees from the ecliptic. Neither the Raashis/Nakshatras have any astrological effect on their own, nor the planets : it is the interplay of Zodiac with planets that produces astrological effects. To replace geometric divisions of Zodiac with physical constellations is neither science nor astrology : such an idea cannot be supported by any authority in either discipline. Asuras do not recognize any existence of Bhuvaloka. Anciengt texts like Brihat-Parashara-Horaa-Shaastra and Suryasiddhanta, which are most important texts in Jyotishacharya curriculum in Sanskrit univ ersities, clearly say that astrologoical planets are incarnations of God and are deities. Everyone, escepting Mr Dheengra, knows that deities cannot be seen by mortals without tapasyaa. Only the astrological effects of these astrological Grahas can be seen. It is wrong to confuse these astrological Gragas with Physical Planets, the latter are material dead things of the mortal world. Mr Dheenga is deliberately distorting my statemets and is deliberately misquoting me( " stars doesnt represent any reality " ). I never said material world does not exist. Material worls is the Bhooloka in which mortals exist. I said it before. Was it very difficult to understand ? No, the problem with atheists is that they cannot tolerate anr reference to deities and start aoffensive language once gods are named. Gita says that Asuras believe only in the physical. It is the asuras who deny the existence of the Reality, and reduce the Reality merely to the physical. Since soul is not a physical entity, Ishould I presule such persons do not possess any soul, and therefore any civillity/morality at all ? He is also using offensive words about me in many mails. I fail to understand why he felt so much offended with my views as to forget normal rules of etiquette and civility. Discussion is carried out with knowledgeable persons. Let Mr Dheengra, who calls me an ignorant persons, show his credentials in either sciene or in astrology. -VJ ================================= =========== ________________________________ Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra Monday, June 29, 2009 6:52:37 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Respected Sunilji, You have said as below Quote It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. Unquote You said that Harimalla is talking nonsense as stars away from ecliptic can not affect us so on the same mail chain i am sayng that even constellation stars by which our constellations have been made are quite away from ecliptic.You had said that Rashis are creation of constellation( animal shapes in the sky) so i am just shedding light of your statements. I dont understand what this Vinayji is talking of, he is saying that stars doesnt represent any reality and he also says that planets described in astrology are not the same one as we see astronomically. Pole star is also not the Dhruva tara.I dont understand what he wants to talk.... You both are giving contradictory statements. Please let me know who is correct SBji is correct or Vinayji is correct. SBji says that stars and planets are physical one but Vinayji is sayng that it is not correct and it is not age-old thing. Who is saying correct?? Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Mon, 29/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, 29 June, 2009, 12:40 PM Great Dheengraji, Good to hear that you want to include all the constellations in the Jyotish shastra. Hope you will come with the complete scheme as to how to implement the use of all the constellations in astronomy and astrology. The Hindu Jyotish shastra includes both astronomy and astrology. You may have to rewrite the entire Hindu astronomy and astrology and probably correct all the literature.. Otherwise what is the utility of any such work? But if you can make a scientifically proven astrology work the astrology haters will also vanish overnight. It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. All the best and eagerly waiting for your proposed epoch-making work. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 4:06 AM Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM Dear Dheengraji, I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: Quote Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? Unquote Awaiting your reply. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > -VJ > ============ ========= = ========= > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > Thank you Sirs > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > <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> > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > sincerely yours, > > HAri Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > & gt% > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Ecliptic is the apparent path of the Sun (or of Earth in heliocentric model), and is always so. But its inclination with respect to Earth's equatorial or axial planes keep on changing due to many factors, such as precession of equinoxes, nutation, etc. Zodiac is not only the ecliptic, but the sum total of all apparent paths of other planets too. Ecliptic is the mean of Zodiac. Earth's rotation makes some particular star near the axial line seem to be fixed for centuries, which we call Dhruva Star. It changes with time as Earth's axis is wobbling. Hence, no star is dhruva Star permanently. Then, were ancient Rishis wrong in declaring Dhruva to be permanently fixed ? Or were they talking about the Dhruva of Ecliptic (Kraanti Vritta) and not about the Dhruva of Equatorial Place (Naadi Vritta) ? The physical Pole of the physical universe is moving round a circle in the sky once every 25771.4 years, and the centre of this circle is always perpendicular to the Ecliptic or the Zodiacal Plane. Astrology is based on Zodiac. Hence, was the Dhruva of sages the point perpendicular to the Zodiac (ecliptic, to be more precise) ? If so, then the Dhruva can be said to be always fixed wrt to the Zodiac, irrespective of the wobble of Earth's axis. This point may be fixed wrt Ecliptic, but will appear to be revolving round the physical Pole Star due to Earth's rotation on its axis. What is real , the apparent revolution of this zodiacally fixed point or the physical Pole Star which is actually never fixed due to precession ? Precession makes no effect on the former, which is always Dhruva. Can we see liberated souls like like Dhruva and seven sages with our physical eyes ? Or are they stars of Bhuvaloka, not perceived sensorily ? -VJ ==================== === ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:29:39 AM Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dinesh-ji, Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? RR , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ ...> wrote: > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > Love you all > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > Dear Dheengraji, > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > Quote > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > the same? > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > Unquote > > Awaiting your reply. > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > Regards, > HAri Malla > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > <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> > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > sincerely yours, > > > HAri Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Well said Sunil da. In astrology, Sun is only one of many Grahas, and not the sole arbiter of everything. Hence, Sayana Raashis cannot be used to make horoscopes. ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:41:55 AM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear members, I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : Quote Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. Unquote How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, 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 Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM Dear Rohiniranjanji, May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. Regards, Hari Malla , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > Dinesh-ji, > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > RR > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > Love you all > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > Quote > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Unquote > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > Regards, > > HAri Malla > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dear Dheengraji, The Nakshatras are the Lunar Mansions or homes by definition and the constellations away from the ecliptic band are not the lunar homes. In case of all these heavenly bodies what one can get are the composite effects but one may not be able to ascertain the individual effects of particular heavenly body. What Shri Harimalla is challenging is that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered then those constellations within the ecliptic band also should also not be considered. That means that he thinks that the nakshatras within the ecliptic has no such effect or role, which the constellations outside the ecliptic cannot have. I cannot agree to his views. What Vinayji is telling is about the astrological view from the Saurapaksha angle. Astrology is the subjective interpretation of the effects of the grahas and the nakshatras on us. These effects cannot be evaluated by the normal scientific procedures. The astrologers tell you about the ill effects of the graha positions and at the same time they are supposed to give you the remedy. In one hand he tells you what can happen and on the other hand he tells how you can avert that. Moreover there can be fake astrologers also. A good astrologer will tell you that the stars impel you and not compel you. So even if a prediction is made it is largely in one's hand to change it. There is a very relevant puranic story on it. Once a devotee of Lord Indra prepared for war against his enemy and the day before the war he asked Lord Indra about the out come of the war. Lord Indra told hin in his draem that he would win. The he and his army relaxed and took things easy and the king lost the war. By the grace of Lord Indra he remained alive. Then he asked Lord Indra as to how he got defeated. Lord Indra said that his preparations were good and he should have won had he not relaxed at the last moment. This shows that the stars give indications and not necessarily the final outome. It is in our hand too. So astrology should be taken positively. It seems Mr. A.K.Kaul was jobless and he could not get job for sometime inspite of good predictions. He does not tell you about his efforts. My feeling is that if the stars were good and he would have tried his best he would have landed in a job. Moreover astrological interpretation requires good judgement. Mr. Kaul says that his Moon is exalted but he should remember that there are nine grahas and even if his Moon is exalted he did not disclose the position of the moon in the Lagna kundali and also whether it in yuti with Rahu or not and whch are the other grahas aspecting that. etc. One has also to remember that even the astrological data may be questionable at times. Then it is " Garbage in and garbage out " . So it is a complicated subject and therefore how can anyone question it? So people either accept it or reject it. It is similar to the fact that the existence of God cannot be proved and one cannot disprove that also.. It is individual's choice. Vinayji is trying to explain the esoteric aspects of astrology which he gained from his guru and it seems that this type of knowledge can only be obtained through the guru parampara. I am also not well -versed in that. Unfortunately in the astrology groups we do not have any other scholar like him who can discuss matters with him at his level. I do not have time too to learn those aspects now. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra wrote: Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:22 AM Respected Sunilji, You have said as below Quote It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. Unquote You said that Harimalla is talking nonsense as stars away from ecliptic can not affect us so on the same mail chain i am sayng that even constellation stars by which our constellations have been made are quite away from ecliptic.You had said that Rashis are creation of constellation( animal shapes in the sky) so i am just shedding light of your statements. I dont understand what this Vinayji is talking of, he is saying that stars doesnt represent any reality and he also says that planets described in astrology are not the same one as we see astronomically. Pole star is also not the Dhruva tara.I dont understand what he wants to talk.... You both are giving contradictory statements. Please let me know who is correct SBji is correct or Vinayji is correct. SBji says that stars and planets are physical one but Vinayji is sayng that it is not correct and it is not age-old thing. Who is saying correct?? Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Mon, 29/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, 29 June, 2009, 12:40 PM Great Dheengraji, Good to hear that you want to include all the constellations in the Jyotish shastra. Hope you will come with the complete scheme as to how to implement the use of all the constellations in astronomy and astrology. The Hindu Jyotish shastra includes both astronomy and astrology. You may have to rewrite the entire Hindu astronomy and astrology and probably correct all the literature.. Otherwise what is the utility of any such work? But if you can make a scientifically proven astrology work the astrology haters will also vanish overnight. It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. All the best and eagerly waiting for your proposed epoch-making work. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 4:06 AM Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM Dear Dheengraji, I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: Quote Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? Unquote Awaiting your reply. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > -VJ > ============ ========= = ========= > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > Thank you Sirs > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > <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> > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > sincerely yours, > > HAri Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > & gt% > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Mr Malla is working on the basis of present correspondence between lunar months, nakshatras and solar months, but refuses to recognize that this correspondence is not eternal, and breaks down after 2458.66 years, as a results of which Chaita does not correspond to Chitra in full moon and so on. The ratio of lunar month and solar year ensures this break down. Unfortunately, Mr Malla refuses to accept mathematics as a proof. 235 synodicaal lunar months roughly approximate to 19 sidereal years, but a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra month in 2458.66 years. That is why Kaliyuga started with Maghi Amavasa near Mesha Samkraanti, but now Mesha Samkraanti is near Chaitra and not Magha. In order to bring about the reforms suggested by Mr Malla, we must request Sun and Moon to change the durations of their revolutions so as to make perfect synchronisation after some arbitrary length of time, otherwise the synchronisation will break down. -VJ ====================== ==== ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:58:50 AM Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear sir, The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 <<< " The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. " >>> Are Nirayan rashis semi-nirayan and semi-sayana ?? What a statement ! Sunil Ji rightly said that even westerners did not disturb the nirayana syatem. Our sayanwallahs are more " advanced " than their western counterparts, they want a sayana system and a semi-sayana-cum -semi-nirayana system which actually means nothing. In physical astronomy, the orbit of a revolving Earth itself rotates at the rate of once per 25771.4 years. Hence, the frame-of-reference of Sayana system, namely the ecliptic, itself is inconstant. In sidereal sustem, fixed sky is taken to be the frame-of-reference. To say that this nirayana sky is inconstant is tantamount to saying that the vacuum itself is rotating !! -vj ===================== = ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:21:22 AM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear friend, You said: Quote The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. Unauote I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. Sincerely Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, 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 Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM Dear sir, The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Whatever be the value of ayanamsha, it affects only the sayana, not the nirayana. Hence, it is incorrect to talk of " limited nirayana " system. but the idea behind Mr Malla's statement is sound, he says that ayanamsha is not a constant increase in value in a circular motion (chakraayana) but a pendulum like to-and-fro motion (dolaayana). He only wants to reduce its value from 27 to 15 degrees, without checking the drastic consequences for phalita jyotisha which he does not even take into consideration. In nirayana system, raashis are fixed in the sky and meena cannot be named mesha. whatever reform Mr Mall wants should be done in his own sayana sysyem, which is already inconstant due to precession and can tolerate Mr Malla's atrocities, but nirayan sky is FIXED. Ant change will destroy Vedic Astrology. Internet fora are not proper places for such epoch making discoveries as Mr Malla is claiming to have made ; he should first get approval from recognized universities where these things are taught. -VJ ======================== == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:09:02 AM Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear sir, Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear friend, > > You said: > > Quote > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > Unauote > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > Dear sir, > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Sunil Da, <<< " Vinayji is trying to explain the esoteric aspects of astrology which he gained from his guru and it seems that this type of knowledge can only be obtained through the guru parampara. " >>> It is true I gained whatever good I possess through guru parampara, and before that my knowledge about astrology was mere bookish and I had myriads of doubts, if and buts, without any conclusive methodology.It is also true that I want to publicize whatever good I know. But I am not trying to publicize any esoteric material : it seems esoteric to internet users because they were not regular students of Sanskrit universities. I am providing some esoteric material about Suryasiddhanta to an Australian bhakta of Shri Chaitanya (Mr Caroll, alias Antardvip Das). I never tried to distribute it publicly in fora. When you get enough time and access to libraries, you will be able to get it too. -VJ ===================== ==== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:00:40 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Dear Dheengraji, The Nakshatras are the Lunar Mansions or homes by definition and the constellations away from the ecliptic band are not the lunar homes. In case of all these heavenly bodies what one can get are the composite effects but one may not be able to ascertain the individual effects of particular heavenly body. What Shri Harimalla is challenging is that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered then those constellations within the ecliptic band also should also not be considered. That means that he thinks that the nakshatras within the ecliptic has no such effect or role, which the constellations outside the ecliptic cannot have. I cannot agree to his views. What Vinayji is telling is about the astrological view from the Saurapaksha angle. Astrology is the subjective interpretation of the effects of the grahas and the nakshatras on us. These effects cannot be evaluated by the normal scientific procedures. The astrologers tell you about the ill effects of the graha positions and at the same time they are supposed to give you the remedy. In one hand he tells you what can happen and on the other hand he tells how you can avert that. Moreover there can be fake astrologers also. A good astrologer will tell you that the stars impel you and not compel you. So even if a prediction is made it is largely in one's hand to change it. There is a very relevant puranic story on it. Once a devotee of Lord Indra prepared for war against his enemy and the day before the war he asked Lord Indra about the out come of the war. Lord Indra told hin in his draem that he would win. The he and his army relaxed and took things easy and the king lost the war. By the grace of Lord Indra he remained alive. Then he asked Lord Indra as to how he got defeated. Lord Indra said that his preparations were good and he should have won had he not relaxed at the last moment. This shows that the stars give indications and not necessarily the final outome. It is in our hand too. So astrology should be taken positively. It seems Mr. A.K.Kaul was jobless and he could not get job for sometime inspite of good predictions. He does not tell you about his efforts. My feeling is that if the stars were good and he would have tried his best he would have landed in a job. Moreover astrological interpretation requires good judgement. Mr. Kaul says that his Moon is exalted but he should remember that there are nine grahas and even if his Moon is exalted he did not disclose the position of the moon in the Lagna kundali and also whether it in yuti with Rahu or not and whch are the other grahas aspecting that. etc. One has also to remember that even the astrological data may be questionable at times. Then it is " Garbage in and garbage out " . So it is a complicated subject and therefore how can anyone question it? So people either accept it or reject it. It is similar to the fact that the existence of God cannot be proved and one cannot disprove that also.. It is individual's choice. Vinayji is trying to explain the esoteric aspects of astrology which he gained from his guru and it seems that this type of knowledge can only be obtained through the guru parampara. I am also not well -versed in that. Unfortunately in the astrology groups we do not have any other scholar like him who can discuss matters with him at his level. I do not have time too to learn those aspects now. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:22 AM Respected Sunilji, You have said as below Quote It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. Unquote You said that Harimalla is talking nonsense as stars away from ecliptic can not affect us so on the same mail chain i am sayng that even constellation stars by which our constellations have been made are quite away from ecliptic.You had said that Rashis are creation of constellation( animal shapes in the sky) so i am just shedding light of your statements. I dont understand what this Vinayji is talking of, he is saying that stars doesnt represent any reality and he also says that planets described in astrology are not the same one as we see astronomically. Pole star is also not the Dhruva tara.I dont understand what he wants to talk.... You both are giving contradictory statements. Please let me know who is correct SBji is correct or Vinayji is correct. SBji says that stars and planets are physical one but Vinayji is sayng that it is not correct and it is not age-old thing. Who is saying correct?? Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Mon, 29/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, 29 June, 2009, 12:40 PM Great Dheengraji, Good to hear that you want to include all the constellations in the Jyotish shastra. Hope you will come with the complete scheme as to how to implement the use of all the constellations in astronomy and astrology. The Hindu Jyotish shastra includes both astronomy and astrology. You may have to rewrite the entire Hindu astronomy and astrology and probably correct all the literature.. Otherwise what is the utility of any such work? But if you can make a scientifically proven astrology work the astrology haters will also vanish overnight. It appears to me that you also have conveniently ignored the particular reasons as to why the constellations in the ecliptic were preferred over the rest of the constellations If you are unaware of the reasons you can tell me. Don't forget that Sunilji also said that there are particular reasons for choosing the constellations in the ecliptic. All the best and eagerly waiting for your proposed epoch-making work. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 4:06 AM Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... Love you all Dinesh Dheengra --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM Dear Dheengraji, I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: Quote Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? Unquote Awaiting your reply. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > -VJ > ============ ========= = ========= > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > Sincerely, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > Thank you Sirs > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > <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> > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > sincerely yours, > > HAri Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > & gt% > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Sunil da, What I meant was that from what I have heard, the earth wobbles around its axis like a top with the south pole relatively fixed but the north pole describing a slow circle over circa 25000 years which becomes apparent as it pointing towards different pole stars and the precession of the synetic vernal point (ayanamsha). So since the angle of inclination of the earth moves a bit (not exactly sure by how many degrees) as it wobbles, the relative position of the ecliptic belt from a fixed point on earth, eg equator should move too. The belt may still remain+/- 9 degrees but the relative equator would shift perhaps. Does it? That was my question?? RR , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > Yes, you are rioght. In the geocentric model the Sun moves round the earth and the path of this movement is called the ecliptic. The planets also move in a belt or band with the ecliptic at its center and the band-width is generally considered to be +/- 9 degrees. > > In the heliocentric model (ie. in reality, where the earth is moving round the Sun), the celestial-north-pole (ie. the north pole of the earth) is pointed towards the pole star. Due to the precession the celestial-north-pole moves from one star in the north to another in the north. Thus we have the change of the pole stars at different time intervals. This effect of precession gets reflected in the geocentric model too. > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote: > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 5:59 PM > > Dinesh-ji, > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > RR > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > Love you all > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > Quote > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Unquote > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > Regards, > > HAri Malla > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Dear Rohini, I think you are right again. There should be some shift of the relative equator correspondingly, ie. to that extent. What does the hardcore astrophysicists say? Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote: Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 3:11 PM Sunil da, What I meant was that from what I have heard, the earth wobbles around its axis like a top with the south pole relatively fixed but the north pole describing a slow circle over circa 25000 years which becomes apparent as it pointing towards different pole stars and the precession of the synetic vernal point (ayanamsha). So since the angle of inclination of the earth moves a bit (not exactly sure by how many degrees) as it wobbles, the relative position of the ecliptic belt from a fixed point on earth, eg equator should move too. The belt may still remain+/- 9 degrees but the relative equator would shift perhaps. Does it? That was my question?? RR , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > > Yes, you are rioght. In the geocentric model the Sun moves round the earth and the path of this movement is called the ecliptic. The planets also move in a belt or band with the ecliptic at its center and the band-width is generally considered to be +/- 9 degrees. > > In the heliocentric model (ie. in reality, where the earth is moving round the Sun), the celestial-north- pole (ie. the north pole of the earth) is pointed towards the pole star. Due to the precession the celestial-north- pole moves from one star in the north to another in the north. Thus we have the change of the pole stars at different time intervals. This effect of precession gets reflected in the geocentric model too. > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 5:59 PM > > Dinesh-ji, > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > RR > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > Love you all > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > Quote > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > the same? > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > Unquote > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > Regards, > > HAri Malla > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Maybe they (Sayan) should be utilized for agriculture because of seasons and how crops and harvests are connected to the LOCAL seasons in the different zones all within this world of ours? Places where SAYAN ZODIAC has been followed for decades and centuries or longer -- do seem to have better harvests and more food available for some strange reason... , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Well said Sunil da. In astrology, Sun is only one of many Grahas, and not the sole arbiter of everything. Hence, Sayana Raashis cannot be used to make horoscopes. > > > > > ________________________________ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:41:55 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, 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 > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 No doubt that the Sayana calendar has use for agricultural purpose. Thai is why both the Nirayana and the Sayana systems were co-existing so far. --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani wrote: Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 6:08 PM Maybe they (Sayan) should be utilized for agriculture because of seasons and how crops and harvests are connected to the LOCAL seasons in the different zones all within this world of ours? Places where SAYAN ZODIAC has been followed for decades and centuries or longer -- do seem to have better harvests and more food available for some strange reason... , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Well said Sunil da. In astrology, Sun is only one of many Grahas, and not the sole arbiter of everything. Hence, Sayana Raashis cannot be used to make horoscopes. > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:41:55 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, 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 > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Sunil Da, Even for agriculture and related activities, Midini Jyotish does not prescribe tropical astrology. Nirayana Mesha Samkrannti gives phala of whole year in all fields , including agriculture and climate. Similarly, mundane horoscopes for other samkrantis and nakshatra transits yield accurate results only when sidereal method is followed. Seasons are tropical, but their regulators are medini (mundane) horoscopes of solar transits into nirayana Raashis and Nakshatras. Countries which follow tropical astrology have prospered onlt recently. During 99% of whole human history, India was far better than Europe in agriculture & c. -VJ =================== ============ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:38:50 AM Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Maybe they (Sayan) should be utilized for agriculture because of seasons and how crops and harvests are connected to the LOCAL seasons in the different zones all within this world of ours? Places where SAYAN ZODIAC has been followed for decades and centuries or longer -- do seem to have better harvests and more food available for some strange reason... , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Well said Sunil da. In astrology, Sun is only one of many Grahas, and not the sole arbiter of everything. Hence, Sayana Raashis cannot be used to make horoscopes. > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:41:55 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Dear members, > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > Quote > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > Unquote > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, 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 > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > the same? > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > Regards, > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Dear Jha Saheb, Since you quoted and seemingly responded to the content in my message inspite of addressing Sunil-Da, it would be impolite of me to not respond to you directly ;-) .... And The Ascension has begun again from what I hear and that is GREAT NEWS from my Matribhoomi! Best wishes as always, Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Sunil Da, > > Even for agriculture and related activities, Midini Jyotish does not prescribe tropical astrology. Nirayana Mesha Samkrannti gives phala of whole year in all fields , including agriculture and climate. Similarly, mundane horoscopes for other samkrantis and nakshatra transits yield accurate results only when sidereal method is followed. Seasons are tropical, but their regulators are medini (mundane) horoscopes of solar transits into nirayana Raashis and Nakshatras. > > Countries which follow tropical astrology have prospered onlt recently. During 99% of whole human history, India was far better than Europe in agriculture & c. > > -VJ > > =================== ============ > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani > > Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:38:50 AM > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Maybe they (Sayan) should be utilized for agriculture because of seasons and how crops and harvests are connected to the LOCAL seasons in the different zones all within this world of ours? > > Places where SAYAN ZODIAC has been followed for decades and centuries or longer -- do seem to have better harvests and more food available for some strange reason... > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Well said Sunil da. In astrology, Sun is only one of many Grahas, and not the sole arbiter of everything. Hence, Sayana Raashis cannot be used to make horoscopes. > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:41:55 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, 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 > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, 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 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > 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.