Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

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%

> > >

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>