Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Dear friends,  I must thank Shri Kaul for forwarding the comments of Sunthar to this forum so that I have a chance to reply. Sunthar says that I am persisting in misrepresenting my critics and that reveals a willful deafness necessitated by misplaced faith or a deliberate tactic that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Sunthar's thinks he is makeng an honest assessment on the basis of the following points:  Quote  1) So far I have not seen anyone claiming that the Vedic passages about the " gods loving the obscure " (parokSa) are invalid; only that you are abusing such statement to read your own fanciful beliefs into (even not particularly) obscure passages.  Unquote  Sunthar has got me wrong. I said that according to the Brhadaranyak upanishad gods love the Paroksha meanings over the Pratyaksha meanings and I have given even the verse number from that Upanishad too. If Sunthar wants I can send him my original mail once again for him to read. I am telling that I am accepting what the Upanishad. It is not proper for Sunthar to challenge the Upanishad. He must know that every Hindu respects the statements of the Upanishads unquestioningly.  Quote  2) Just because Agastya could not have been born in pot, it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Why are you ignoring its well-known and ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara), that I pointed out immediately?  Unquote  Just because Agastya could not be born in a pot he says that it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Well and good. I have just submitted my view that Agastya could have been born in Kumbha Rashi from Varuna's seed as astrologically Satabhisa, the central nakshatra of the Kumbha rashi, is ruled by Varuna. Now Sunthar comes out with the statement that I am dishonest as I did not think of ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara) and he says that he pointed that out immediately. Firstly I never received any suggestion from Sunthar regarding Kumbhodara, before this mail. Secondly now let us analyze his view. If Agastya was born in his mother Havirbhoo's Kumbhodara (womb) from Varuna's seed then Sunthar is suggesting that Agastya's mother must have been violated by Varuna. What can be more preposterous than that?  Quote  3) What factual evidence do you have that the 'spurious' verses were marked as interpolations simply because of the influence of Pingree? You have been reduced to circular arguments, where everything that contradicts your beliefs is due to the bad faith of editors.  Unquote  Does not it appear sane to think that if the verse mentioning the Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha is  really considered spurious then it would have been deleted and not kept. It is mere common sense.. The verses are there as it was originally there. But Colebrooke gave the date of Vedanga Jyotisha as 1400 BCE and according to David Pingree the Indians learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks about a millennium later than the date of composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Thus it created doubt in minds of some people that the verse could have been interpolated as the Rashis must not have been known at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha if these were imported from the Greeks. I hope Sunthar will now be able to understnd what I have written in plain English.  As regrds your following comment I would request Sunthar to elaborate it.  Quote  4) If contemporary brahmins, such as Avtar, can swear by modern astronomy, and even earn their livelihood through the practice of mleccha 'sciences', why do you deny your forebears the same privilege?  Unquote Sincerely,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya  PS. I read this mail in a group other than " Abhinavagupta " , the owned by Sunthar, as it was forwarded by Shri Kaul. But I am marking a copy to the " Abhinavagupta " group also..  --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote: Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved [VRI] Fwd: Fw: Rashis once more vedic_research_institute Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:32 AM Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil, To persist in misrepresenting your critics in this way reveals a willful deafness necessitated by misplaced faith or a deliberate tactic that reeks of intellectual dishonesty: * So far I have not seen anyone claiming that the Vedic passages about the " gods loving the obscure " (parokSa) are invalid; only that you are abusing such statement to read your own fanciful beliefs into (even not particularly) obscure passages. * Just because Agastya could not have been born in pot, it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Why are you ignoring its well-known and ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara), that I pointed out immediately? * What factual evidence do you have that the 'spurious' verses were marked as interpolations simply because of the influence of Pingree? You have been reduced to circular arguments, where everything that contradicts your beliefs is due to the bad faith of editors. If contemporary brahmins, such as Avtar, can swear by modern astronomy, and even earn their livelihood through the practice of mleccha 'sciences', why do you deny your forebears the same privilege? Sunthar [Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (30 June) on Sunil's post (25 June 2009) at http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5232] ------------ - Dear Vinay,  Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other groups so that Sreenadhji and also the other scholars from the different groups can give his views. As regards the confusion between " meenaat prabhriti " and " Meenaan-prabhriti " it appears to me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the Sandhi on.  Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings. But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing the Upanishad. Don't you think so?  Thirdly Shri Sathaye is prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havir-bhoo) when the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes.  Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was done so due to the Pingreean belief that the Rashis were imported from the Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also.  Best wishes,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya   --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote: Avinash Sathaye <sohum [WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more WAVES-Vedic Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AM Dear Friends, I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the parokSha-vAdins' declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it, except by following their advice. This, to me, was and is a dead end discussion. However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji. I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.  These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on a 19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by using this viewpoint. I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my web page. These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for Rigveda and Yajurveda versions. Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0 " added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about their origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions. One of these is the controversial " mInAn-prabhRRiti " verse, the second is an innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed. The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called " parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there. Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics. As a side comment: " mInAn prabhRRiti " has grammar problems. " prabhRRiti " takes the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes from a tradition which uses a different start for the year!  It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with actual manuscripts. For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from Holay's book. I use Itrans notation: yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA | tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4 \[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH | trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \] mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH | yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5 \[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm | dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\] I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional. I suspect there are two typos as well. 1. In 4-0:  trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitA as RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is! 2. In 42-0: The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course. Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser: यथा शिखा मयूराणां नागानां मणयो यथा। तदà¥à¤µà¤¦à¥à¤µà¥‡à¤¦à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—शासà¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ गणितं मूरà¥à¤§à¤¨à¤¿ सà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤®à¥à¥¥ ४ [ये बृहसà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¤¿à¤¨à¤¾ à¤à¥à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¾ मीनानà¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿ राशयः। तà¥à¤°à¤¿à¤µà¥ƒà¤¤à¤¾à¤ƒ पञà¥à¤šà¤à¤¿à¤°à¥à¤‹à¤¤à¤¾ यः शेषः स परिगà¥à¤°à¤¹à¤ƒà¥¥à¥ª-० ] माघशà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯ पौषकृषà¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤ यà¥à¤—सà¥à¤¯ पञà¥à¤šà¤µà¤°à¥à¤·à¤¸à¥à¤¯ कालजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤šà¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥‡à¥¥ ५ [ इतà¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µà¤‚ मासवरà¥à¤·à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ मà¥à¤¹à¥‚रà¥à¤¤à¥‹à¤¦à¤¯à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤µà¤£à¤¾à¤®à¥à¥¤ दिनरà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¯à¤¨à¤®à¤¾à¤¸à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—ं वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ लगतोऽबà¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-०] -- With Best Regards, Avinash Sathaye Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Mr sunil Bhattacharjya is sincerely trying to put forth his interpretations sincerely, and Mr Kaul is violating the norms of civilised behaviour by charging him of dishonesty. Mr Kaul and some of his supporgters are marked for their harsh words about others whom they regard as " adversaries " , because Mr Kaul is carrying out a Jehad against Vedic Astrology. -VJ ====================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya vedic_research_institute Cc: WAVES-Vedic ; Vedic-astrology ; ; indiaarchaeology ; Abhinavagupta ; USBrahmins Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:40:15 PM [vedic astrology] Re: [VRI] Fwd: Fw: Rashis once more Dear friends, I must thank Shri Kaul for forwarding the comments of Sunthar to this forum so that I have a chance to reply. Sunthar says that I am persisting in misrepresenting my critics and that reveals a willful deafness necessitated by misplaced faith or a deliberate tactic that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Sunthar's thinks he is makeng an honest assessment on the basis of the following points: Quote 1) So far I have not seen anyone claiming that the Vedic passages about the " gods loving the obscure " (parokSa) are invalid; only that you are abusing such statement to read your own fanciful beliefs into (even not particularly) obscure passages. Unquote Sunthar has got me wrong. I said that according to the Brhadaranyak upanishad gods love the Paroksha meanings over the Pratyaksha meanings and I have given even the verse number from that Upanishad too. If Sunthar wants I can send him my original mail once again for him to read. I am telling that I am accepting what the Upanishad. It is not proper for Sunthar to challenge the Upanishad. He must know that every Hindu respects the statements of the Upanishads unquestioningly. Quote 2) Just because Agastya could not have been born in pot, it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Why are you ignoring its well-known and ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara), that I pointed out immediately? Unquote Just because Agastya could not be born in a pot he says that it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Well and good. I have just submitted my view that Agastya could have been born in Kumbha Rashi from Varuna's seed as astrologically Satabhisa, the central nakshatra of the Kumbha rashi, is ruled by Varuna. Now Sunthar comes out with the statement that I am dishonest as I did not think of ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara) and he says that he pointed that out immediately. Firstly I never received any suggestion from Sunthar regarding Kumbhodara, before this mail. Secondly now let us analyze his view. If Agastya was born in his mother Havirbhoo's Kumbhoda ra (womb) from Varuna's seed then Sunthar is suggesting that Agastya's mother must have been violated by Varuna. What can be more preposterous than that? Quote 3) What factual evidence do you have that the 'spurious' verses were marked as interpolations simply because of the influence of Pingree? You have been reduced to circular arguments, where everything that contradicts your beliefs is due to the bad faith of editors. Unquote Does not it appear sane to think that if the verse mentioning the Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha is really considered spurious then it would have been deleted and not kept. It is mere common sense.. The verses are there as it was originally there. But Colebrooke gave the date of Vedanga Jyotisha as 1400 BCE and according to David Pingree the Indians learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks about a millennium later than the date of composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Thus it created doubt in minds of some people that the verse could have been interpolated as the Rashis must not have been known at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha if these were imported from the Greeks. I hope Sunthar will now be able to understnd what I have written in plain English. As regrds your following comment I would request Sunthar to elaborate it. Quote 4) If contemporary brahmins, such as Avtar, can swear by modern astronomy, and even earn their livelihood through the practice of mleccha 'sciences', why do you deny your forebears the same privilege? Unquote Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya PS. I read this mail in a group other than " Abhinavagupta " , the owned by Sunthar, as it was forwarded by Shri Kaul. But I am marking a copy to the " Abhinavagupta " group also.. --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> wrote: Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> [VRI] Fwd: Fw: Rashis once more vedic_research_ institute Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:32 AM Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil, To persist in misrepresenting your critics in this way reveals a willful deafness necessitated by misplaced faith or a deliberate tactic that reeks of intellectual dishonesty: * So far I have not seen anyone claiming that the Vedic passages about the " gods loving the obscure " (parokSa) are invalid; only that you are abusing such statement to read your own fanciful beliefs into (even not particularly) obscure passages. * Just because Agastya could not have been born in pot, it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Why are you ignoring its well-known and ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara), that I pointed out immediately? * What factual evidence do you have that the 'spurious' verses were marked as interpolations simply because of the influence of Pingree? You have been reduced to circular arguments, where everything that contradicts your beliefs is due to the bad faith of editors. If contemporary brahmins, such as Avtar, can swear by modern astronomy, and even earn their livelihood through the practice of mleccha 'sciences', why do you deny your forebears the same privilege? Sunthar [Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (30 June) on Sunil's post (25 June 2009) at http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5232] ------------ - Dear Vinay, Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other groups so that Sreenadhji and also the other scholars from the different groups can give his views. As regards the confusion between " meenaat prabhriti " and " Meenaan-prabhriti " it appears to me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the Sandhi on. Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings. But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing the Upanishad. Don't you think so? Thirdly Shri Sathaye is prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havir-bhoo) when the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes. Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was done so due to the Pingreean belief that the Rashis were imported from the Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also.. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote: Avinash Sathaye <sohum [WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more WAVES-Vedic Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AM Dear Friends, I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the parokSha-vAdins' declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it, except by following their advice. This, to me, was and is a dead end discussion. However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji. I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions. These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on a 19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by using this viewpoint. I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my web page. These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for Rigveda and Yajurveda versions. Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0 " added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about their origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions. One of these is the controversial " mInAn-prabhRRiti " verse, the second is an innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed. The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called " parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there. Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics. As a side comment: " mInAn prabhRRiti " has grammar problems. " prabhRRiti " takes the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes from a tradition which uses a different start for the year! It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with actual manuscripts. For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from Holay's book. I use Itrans notation: yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA | tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4 \[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH | trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \] mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH | yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5 \[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm | dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\] I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional. I suspect there are two typos as well. 1. In 4-0: trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitA as RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is! 2. In 42-0: The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course. Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser: यथा शिखा मयूराणां नागानां मणयो यथा। तदà¥à¤µà¤¦à¥à¤µà¥‡à¤¦à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—शासà¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ गणितं मूरà¥à¤§à¤¨à¤¿ सà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤®à¥à¥¥ ४ [ये बृहसà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¤¿à¤¨à¤¾ à¤à¥à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¾ मीनानà¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿ राशयः। तà¥à¤°à¤¿à¤µà¥ƒà¤¤à¤¾à¤ƒ पञà¥à¤šà¤à¤¿à¤°à¥à¤‹à¤¤à¤¾ यः शेषः स परिगà¥à¤°à¤¹à¤ƒà¥¥à¥ª-० ] माघशà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯ पौषकृषà¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤ यà¥à¤—सà¥à¤¯ पञà¥à¤šà¤µà¤°à¥à¤·à¤¸à¥à¤¯ कालजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤šà¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥‡à¥¥ ५ [ इतà¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µà¤‚ मासवरà¥à¤·à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ मà¥à¤¹à¥‚रà¥à¤¤à¥‹à¤¦à¤¯à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤µà¤£à¤¾à¤®à¥à¥¤ दिनरà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¯à¤¨à¤®à¤¾à¤¸à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—ं वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ लगतोऽबà¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-०] -- With Best Regards, Avinash Sathaye Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Dear friends, I must thank Shri Kaul for forwarding the comments of Sunthar to this forum so that I have a chance to reply. Sunthar says that I am persisting in misrepresenting my critics and that reveals a willful deafness necessitated by misplaced faith or a deliberate tactic that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Sunthar's thinks he is makeng an honest assessment on the basis of the following points: Quote 1) So far I have not seen anyone claiming that the Vedic passages about the "gods loving the obscure" (parokSa) are invalid; only that you are abusing such statement to read your own fanciful beliefs into (even not particularly) obscure passages. Unquote Sunthar has got me wrong. I said that according to the Brhadaranyak upanishad gods love the Paroksha meanings over the Pratyaksha meanings and I have given even the verse number from that Upanishad too. If Sunthar wants I can send him my original mail once again for him to read. I am telling that I am accepting what the Upanishad. It is not proper for Sunthar to challenge the Upanishad. He must know that every Hindu respects the statements of the Upanishads unquestioningly. Quote 2)Just because Agastya could not have been born in pot, it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Why are you ignoring its well-known and ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara), that I pointed out immediately? Unquote Just because Agastya could not be born in a pot he says that it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Well and good. I have just submitted my view that Agastya could have been born in Kumbha Rashi from Varuna's seed as astrologically Satabhisa, the central nakshatra of the Kumbha rashi, is ruled by Varuna. Now Sunthar comes out with the statement that I am dishonest as I did not think of ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara) and he says that he pointed that out immediately. Firstly I never received any suggestion from Sunthar regarding Kumbhodara, before this mail. Secondly now let us analyze his view. If Agastya was born in his mother Havirbhoo's Kumbhodara (womb) from Varuna's seed then Sunthar is suggesting that Agastya's mother must have been violated by Varuna. What can be more preposterous than that? Quote 3) What factual evidence do you have that the 'spurious' verses were marked as interpolations simply because of the influence of Pingree? You have been reduced to circular arguments, where everything that contradicts your beliefs is due to the bad faith of editors. Unquote Does not it appear sane to think that if the verse mentioning the Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha is really considered spurious then it would have been deleted and not kept. It is mere common sense.. The verses are there as it was originally there. But Colebrooke gave the date of Vedanga Jyotisha as 1400 BCE and according to David Pingree the Indians learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks about a millennium later than the date of composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Thus it created doubt in minds of some people that the verse could have been interpolated as the Rashis must not have been known at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha if these were imported from the Greeks. I hope Sunthar will now be able to understnd what I have written in plain English. As regrds your following comment I would request Sunthar to elaborate it. Quote 4)If contemporary brahmins, such as Avtar, can swear by modern astronomy, and even earn their livelihood through the practice of mleccha 'sciences', why do you deny your forebears the same privilege? UnquoteSincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya PS. I read this mail in a group other than "Abhinavagupta", the owned by Sunthar, as it was forwarded by Shri Kaul. But I am marking a copy to the "Abhinavagupta"group also.. --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote: Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved[VRI] Fwd: Fw: Rashis once morevedic_research_institute Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:32 AM Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil,To persist in misrepresenting your critics in this way reveals a willful deafness necessitated by misplaced faith or a deliberate tactic that reeks of intellectual dishonesty:* So far I have not seen anyone claiming that the Vedic passages about the "gods loving the obscure" (parokSa) are invalid; only that you are abusing such statement to read your own fanciful beliefs into (even not particularly) obscure passages.* Just because Agastya could not have been born in pot, it does not logically follow that he was born (when the Sun was) in Kumbha (Aquarius). Why are you ignoring its well-known and ubiquitous meaning of 'womb' (as in kumbhodara), that I pointed out immediately?* What factual evidence do you have that the 'spurious' verses were marked as interpolations simply because of the influence of Pingree? You have been reduced to circular arguments, where everything that contradicts your beliefs is due to the bad faith of editors.If contemporary brahmins, such as Avtar, can swear by modern astronomy, and even earn their livelihood through the practice of mleccha 'sciences', why do you deny your forebears the same privilege?Sunthar[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (30 June) on Sunil's post (25 June 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5232]------------ -Dear Vinay, Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other groups so that Sreenadhji and also the other scholars from the different groups can give his views. As regards the confusion between "meenaat prabhriti" and "Meenaan-prabhriti" it appears to me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the Sandhi on. Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings. But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing the Upanishad. Don't you think so? Thirdly Shri Sathaye is prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havir-bhoo) when the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes. Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was done so due to the Pingreean belief that the Rashis were imported from the Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:Avinash Sathaye <sohum[WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once moreWAVES-Vedic@ . comFriday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AMDear Friends,I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the parokSha-vAdins'declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it, except by following their advice.This, to me, was and is a dead end discussion.However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji.I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions. These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on a 19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by using this viewpoint.I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my web page.These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0" added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about their origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions.One of these is the controversial "mInAn-prabhRRiti" verse, the second is an innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed.The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called "parigraha", it clearly does not belong there.Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics.As a side comment: "mInAn prabhRRiti" has grammar problems. "prabhRRiti" takes the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes from a tradition which uses a different start for the year! It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with actual manuscripts.For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from Holay's book.I use Itrans notation:yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA |tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4\[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH |trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \]mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH |yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5\[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm |dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\]I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional.I suspect there are two typos as well.1. In 4-0: trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitAas RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is!2. In 42-0:The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course.Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser:यथा शिखा मयूराणां नागानां मणयो यथा।तदà¥à¤µà¤¦à¥à¤µà¥‡à¤¦à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—शासà¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ गणितं मूरà¥à¤§à¤¨à¤¿ सà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤®à¥à¥¥ ४[ये बृहसà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¤¿à¤¨à¤¾ à¤à¥à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¾ मीनानà¥à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤à¥ƒà¤¤à¤¿ राशयः।तà¥à¤°à¤¿à¤µà¥ƒà¤¤à¤¾à¤ƒ पञà¥à¤šà¤à¤¿à¤°à¥à¤‹à¤¤à¤¾ यः शेषः स परिगà¥à¤°à¤¹à¤ƒà¥¥à¥ª-० ]माघशà¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯ पौषकृषà¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤à¤¯à¥à¤—सà¥à¤¯ पञà¥à¤šà¤µà¤°à¥à¤·à¤¸à¥à¤¯ कालजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤šà¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥‡à¥¥ ५[ इतà¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µà¤‚ मासवरà¥à¤·à¤¾à¤£à¤¾à¤‚ मà¥à¤¹à¥‚रà¥à¤¤à¥‹à¤¦à¤¯à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤µà¤£à¤¾à¤®à¥à¥¤à¤¦à¤¿à¤¨à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¯à¤¨à¤®à¤¾à¤¸à¤¾à¤™à¥à¤—ं वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ लगतोऽबà¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-०]--With Best Regards,Avinash SathayeWeb: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum--- End forwarded message --- 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.