Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

July 2, 2009

Harimallaji,

As usual you have ignored what I wrote in the last mail. With your adamant

attitude no talk is possible. Please read those seven points I mentioned and add

add one more point now. How can you shift one fixed rashi to another. Can you

shift Japan to UK as both are islands? So please stop your clever attempts to

manipulate.

S.K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

harimalla <harimalla

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 9:28 PM

Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over

one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift

the rashis appropriately.

2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of

limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should

be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15

degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the

concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path

compromise.

3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not

effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the

land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is

suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of

jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency.

4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can

go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only

the mother knows who the father is.

So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will

easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish

the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed,

according to SB Dixit.

6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the

original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are

better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so

hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is

uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting

that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep

the fifth vedas always correct.

So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Hari Malla

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> NShri Harimallaji,

>

> You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste

your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what

I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter

solstice, ie. Tapa should

coincide

> with Pausha month.

>

> You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western

astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect

on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand

why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able

to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what

you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt

repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and

Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to

the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please

quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much

much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called

Dharmashastra.

>

> I summarise the above as follows:

>

> 1) Show precedents,

> 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You

cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and

reassertions.

> 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

>

> Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven

points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed

so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to

particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have

you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

>

> Sincerely

>

> --- 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, 8:39 PM

>

Dear sir,

> Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not

effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

>

> thank you,

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > Dear friend,

> >

> > You said:

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

> >

> > Unauote

> >

> > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

> >

> > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> >

> > Dear sir,

> > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our

solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of

adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear members,

> > >

> > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month

to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new

epochal mesh rashi.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

> > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras?

The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with

the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > >

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future

be fulfilled!

> > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > >

> > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

> > > >

> > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that

was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what

an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > >

> > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created

by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent

movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its

slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of

" ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the

earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of

ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > >

> > > > RR

> > > >

> > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > >

> > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered

around the ecliptic.

> > > > >

> > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind

what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > >

> > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

> > > > >

> > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are

scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more

away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular

constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came

up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > >

> > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

> > > > >

> > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > >

> > > > > Love you all

> > > > >

> > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > >

> > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

> > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

> > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

> > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

> > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

> > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

> > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

> > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice

of the

> > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

> > > > > the same?

> > > > >

> > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that

he

> > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no

> > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

> > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

> > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

> > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

> > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > > > >

> > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > >

> > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly,

it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true

for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus

forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually

it is not.

> > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > >

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient

wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence

of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an

astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or

planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why

you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles

before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who

is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it

is an age-old thing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but

you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an

outdated person.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees

away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means

those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about

the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has

not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

> > > > > >

> > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works

present between us

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the

following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

> > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the

receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the

different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects

on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

> > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you

want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do

not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@

> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!!

And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if

you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and

enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are

just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied

science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > He says -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the

other 76

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does

this not

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the

basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in

understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand

and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each

other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he

should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific

knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which

it never can) and then comment on anything!!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a.> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the

Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav

without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for

ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the

Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky

(Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh

(Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these

have come from the west.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in

the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called

Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is

the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12

Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake

knowledge.. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members

of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can

start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and

not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his

cronies first.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about

calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical

knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to

grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia

of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88

constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals

and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after

lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the

scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of

which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the

eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are

not used to that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12

constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it

is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita

Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not

12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is

mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote

me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be

considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology

out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few

constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky,

it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to

understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak

that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe

some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars

effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to

effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76

groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that

actually none of the stars

effect

> > us?

> > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally

accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition

of Aries.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of

the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with

the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically,

Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved

on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana

about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu

mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally

ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed

Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only

unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas

like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar

sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma

sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma

sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person.. You also

do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited

knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas

parties.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than

recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar

sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the

century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned

above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and

read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make

the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal

equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is

full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra

too.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not

here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have

harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for

renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88

constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest

of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't

even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12.. I made you admit

that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient

texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form

of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the

recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please

do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you

are very

> concerned

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > the Dharma.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 2)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis

were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the

puranas?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already

given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga

Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are

against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you

is doing here?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in

the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with

the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told

him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar

will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also

tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the

terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in

Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already

told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby

approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you

can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your

own self-imposed darkness I have no objection.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in

connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested

in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided

the Modearorji approves such discussions here.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in

Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one

question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis

were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the

rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence

of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am

assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the

rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn

that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt

with in the puranas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures

or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our

culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in

the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of

calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support

such a method of calendar reform?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute,

USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all

out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy

for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view

that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals

point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and

Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of

changing your opinion on that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You also said as follows "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on

phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this

and other forums "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita

forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for

that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views

and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so

that at least I can get know about your scholarship?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 4)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic

words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have

quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold

about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami

Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your

doubts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He

mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 5)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are

zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria

to be met by the Puranas?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 6)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this

purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I

concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you

can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say

yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to

see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on

phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in

this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology

on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

Puranas etc.. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he

had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic

parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas

advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have

to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called

Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska

and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the

mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

exception for such " hidden " meanings!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the

Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar

Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have

" parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of

that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is

available.. I could not find it on INSA site.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a

lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying

that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis

have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other

sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the

Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to

whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way

round.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal

in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own

knowledge.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > With regaqrds,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

sunil_bhattacharjya . wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic

scholar.. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am

a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian

Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu

Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and

I hope they will express their views sooner or later.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that

I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I

have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept

or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to

accept two axioms:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning

and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a

Sukta based on their view.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true

truth!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye

saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the

Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which

means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the

evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda.

But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read

the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda

etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have

to accept my firm interpretation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on

Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the

" Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in

five. minutes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could

see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to

the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the

Vamana Purana .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and

criticize unnecessarily.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail

to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find

that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!

This happens only with WAVES!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we

must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to

digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read

Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree

with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to

accept two axioms:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning

and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a

Sukta based on their view.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true

truth!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to

produce anything useful or rational.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time

on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology,

their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I

am very interested.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write

down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the

Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected members,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite

interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri

Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc.

Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye

<sohum@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K.

Bhattacharjya. .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of

Rashis in the Veda.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are my observations:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > & gt%

> > > > > >

July 2, 2009

Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of

traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being

made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this

committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded

by panchanga makers and by public at large.

The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising

if someone throws away Raashis.

But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God

can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by

the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss

to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their

livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe.

The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

" Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha.

The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana

was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing

ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be

defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are

not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha.

Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

-VJ

============================ ===

________________________________

" harimalla " <harimalla

Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM