Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted 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% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted 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 Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Dear Vinay, Our ancient Dharmashastra, Manu Smriti says that the kings should consult astrologers and this shows the existence of knowledge of astrology in India long before the Greeks had the knowledge of astrology but the anti-Hindu people are telling that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. The Puranas or the Fifth Veda mentions rashis and these anti-Hindu people are telling that Hindus learnt about rashis from the Greeks. The Mahabharata mentions Mrigachakra, which means Rashi-chakra and we know that the rashis are named after the animate objects. Nakshatras, on the contrary, are not named after animals. The Upanishad gives more value to Paroksha knowledge and the anti-Hindu people ridicules that. Do just their Hindu names and their taking birth in a Hindu family qualify them to call themselves Hindu even if they do not believe in Hindu dharmashastara and have no faith in the Puranas and the the upanishads etc. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Sir, If you know Hindi, I will send you my invited lecture at Kalidasa Academy (= official Sanskrit Academy of Madhya Pradesh Govt), invited by Vikram University of Ujjain, on 13-3-2008. The topic was " Contribution of Indian Astrology to the World " (Hindi). I was the solo speaker. It will need downloading of Hindi fonts from the bottom of following page : http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/ -Vinay Jha ========================= ===== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:14:24 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Our ancient Dharmashastra, Manu Smriti says that the kings should consult astrologers and this shows the existence of knowledge of astrology in India long before the Greeks had the knowledge of astrology but the anti-Hindu people are telling that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. The Puranas or the Fifth Veda mentions rashis and these anti-Hindu people are telling that Hindus learnt about rashis from the Greeks. The Mahabharata mentions Mrigachakra, which means Rashi-chakra and we know that the rashis are named after the animate objects. Nakshatras, on the contrary, are not named after animals. The Upanishad gives more value to Paroksha knowledge and the anti-Hindu people ridicules that. Do just their Hindu names and their taking birth in a Hindu family qualify them to call themselves Hindu even if they do not believe in Hindu dharmashastara and have no faith in the Puranas and the the upanishads etc. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ==================== ==== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear Vinay, If you please send the paper in the converted form then I think I can read the paper in Devnagari script without the fonts. Otherwise I shall do as you say. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM Sir, If you know Hindi, I will send you my invited lecture at Kalidasa Academy (= official Sanskrit Academy of Madhya Pradesh Govt), invited by Vikram University of Ujjain, on 13-3-2008. The topic was " Contribution of Indian Astrology to the World " (Hindi). I was the solo speaker. It will need downloading of Hindi fonts from the bottom of following page : http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/ -Vinay Jha ============ ========= ==== ===== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:14:24 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Our ancient Dharmashastra, Manu Smriti says that the kings should consult astrologers and this shows the existence of knowledge of astrology in India long before the Greeks had the knowledge of astrology but the anti-Hindu people are telling that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. The Puranas or the Fifth Veda mentions rashis and these anti-Hindu people are telling that Hindus learnt about rashis from the Greeks. The Mahabharata mentions Mrigachakra, which means Rashi-chakra and we know that the rashis are named after the animate objects. Nakshatras, on the contrary, are not named after animals. The Upanishad gives more value to Paroksha knowledge and the anti-Hindu people ridicules that. Do just their Hindu names and their taking birth in a Hindu family qualify them to call themselves Hindu even if they do not believe in Hindu dharmashastara and have no faith in the Puranas and the the upanishads etc. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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 a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear Vinay, If you please send the paper in the converted form then I think I can read the paper in Devnagari script without the fonts. Otherwise I shall do as you say. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM Sir, If you know Hindi, I will send you my invited lecture at Kalidasa Academy (= official Sanskrit Academy of Madhya Pradesh Govt), invited by Vikram University of Ujjain, on 13-3-2008. The topic was " Contribution of Indian Astrology to the World " (Hindi). I was the solo speaker. It will need downloading of Hindi fonts from the bottom of following page : http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/ -Vinay Jha ============ ========= ==== ===== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:14:24 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Our ancient Dharmashastra, Manu Smriti says that the kings should consult astrologers and this shows the existence of knowledge of astrology in India long before the Greeks had the knowledge of astrology but the anti-Hindu people are telling that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. The Puranas or the Fifth Veda mentions rashis and these anti-Hindu people are telling that Hindus learnt about rashis from the Greeks. The Mahabharata mentions Mrigachakra, which means Rashi-chakra and we know that the rashis are named after the animate objects. Nakshatras, on the contrary, are not named after animals. The Upanishad gives more value to Paroksha knowledge and the anti-Hindu people ridicules that. Do just their Hindu names and their taking birth in a Hindu family qualify them to call themselves Hindu even if they do not believe in Hindu dharmashastara and have no faith in the Puranas and the the upanishads etc. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Sunil Da, Font conversion will require complete re-writing of the whole article. Installing and downloading requires just two minutes. My actual speech was much more detailed than the article. The article was intended for publication in a magazine read by pandita, hence I excluded many details which I elaborated in the speech. I am sending the article shortly. -VJ ====================== ====== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Friday, July 3, 2009 7:50:27 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, If you please send the paper in the converted form then I think I can read the paper in Devnagari script without the fonts. Otherwise I shall do as you say. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:36 AM Sir, If you know Hindi, I will send you my invited lecture at Kalidasa Academy (= official Sanskrit Academy of Madhya Pradesh Govt), invited by Vikram University of Ujjain, on 13-3-2008. The topic was " Contribution of Indian Astrology to the World " (Hindi). I was the solo speaker. It will need downloading of Hindi fonts from the bottom of following page : http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/ -Vinay Jha ============ ========= ==== ===== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:14:24 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Our ancient Dharmashastra, Manu Smriti says that the kings should consult astrologers and this shows the existence of knowledge of astrology in India long before the Greeks had the knowledge of astrology but the anti-Hindu people are telling that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. The Puranas or the Fifth Veda mentions rashis and these anti-Hindu people are telling that Hindus learnt about rashis from the Greeks. The Mahabharata mentions Mrigachakra, which means Rashi-chakra and we know that the rashis are named after the animate objects. Nakshatras, on the contrary, are not named after animals. The Upanishad gives more value to Paroksha knowledge and the anti-Hindu people ridicules that. Do just their Hindu names and their taking birth in a Hindu family qualify them to call themselves Hindu even if they do not believe in Hindu dharmashastara and have no faith in the Puranas and the the upanishads etc. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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 a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Sunil Da, I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? -VJ ===================== == ________________________________ " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. Thanks --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM Sunil Da, I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjya @ " <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Sinil Da, After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. -VJ ==================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. Thanks --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM Sunil Da, I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Dear Vinay, When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM Sinil Da, After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. Thanks --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM Sunil Da, I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Harimallaji, There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. SKB --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? thank you, Regards, Hari Malla casued thereby. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > Sinil Da, > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > Thanks > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > Sunil Da, > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Harimallaji, Again you are diverting the topic. The point Vinay made was quite different. First please read his last mail and then you can say if you have anything to contribute on that . Your other ideas can be in a different thread. It appears that he gave you some mathematical calculations also but you have not studied that. According to the Vedanga Jyotisha the 5-year Yuga period starts with the bright fortnight of Soli-Lunar Magha (and ends in the dark fortnight of Pausha). At the time of composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha when the Yuga started there was Uttarayana in Dahnistha and the seasonal month Obviously) was Tapa. I was telling Vinay that this is quite possible. But it seems that from the Saurapaksha calculations Vinay finds it to be impossible. I am not familiar with the Saurapaksha calculations. So you also better wait to hear from Vinay rather than diverting the topic. As you have time then please reply to my earlier mail with the 7 points. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/4/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 4, 2009, 1:10 AM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, sincerely lyours, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 You make me laugh. What is Nirayana Uttarayana? Uttarayana occurs every year since the solar system came to be. It occurred at different nakshaytras at different times. Nakshatrasare Nirayana and if you do not know this simple fundamental thing then please do not waste time. Secondly you said: Quote Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional. Unquote Avtar krishen Kaul abuses Varahamihira and calls him Charlatan and accuses him that he had stolen astrology from the Greeks. All this is because Avtar Kaul does not know the true date of Varahamihira or pretends not to know that. So the Antiquity is the most most most important thing. I have told him that Varahamihira's date is 427 of Sakendra kala as given by Varahamihira himself and Sakendra kala is different from the Shalivahana saka. But he is bent upon repeating the same record everytime. Next time please do not say that antiquity is not important. SKB -- On Sat, 7/4/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 4, 2009, 1:34 AM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, We should agree, we have had two nirayan uttarayan in the last 3400 years.One was sun in dhnistha for 1700years and another sun in makar sankranti for about 1700years. It is now time we searched for another sun positon as the new solar uttarayan.Right? Please give your opinion as to the new limit of ayanamsa as 15 degrees instead of the 27 degrees as mentioned in Surya sidhnanta to continue our solilunar system as it is.Thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > sincerely lyours, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ <harimalla@> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ <harimalla@> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Sunil Da, I have studied all aspects of this VJ problem and even made some special softwares to test various viewpoints before declaring that the conditions specified in VJ cannot be met within past one million years, leave aside 2400 or 1400 BCE. Lunar Magha Shukla Pratipada is impossible at the entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa. VJ talks of " entry into Dhanishthaa " and not about residence in Dhanishthaa. Hence, 2400 BCE is not correct, because Sun and Moon must be at the start of Dhanishthaa and not anywhere in Dhanishthaa. -VJ ====================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Friday, July 3, 2009 7:35:07 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM Sinil Da, After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. Thanks --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM Sunil Da, I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 May be 1400 BCE then. SKB --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Monday, July 6, 2009, 6:48 AM Sunil Da, I have studied all aspects of this VJ problem and even made some special softwares to test various viewpoints before declaring that the conditions specified in VJ cannot be met within past one million years, leave aside 2400 or 1400 BCE. Lunar Magha Shukla Pratipada is impossible at the entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa. VJ talks of " entry into Dhanishthaa " and not about residence in Dhanishthaa. Hence, 2400 BCE is not correct, because Sun and Moon must be at the start of Dhanishthaa and not anywhere in Dhanishthaa. -VJ ============ ========= = == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Friday, July 3, 2009 7:35:07 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM Sinil Da, After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. Thanks --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM Sunil Da, I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM Sunil Da, You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. -VJ ============ ======== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. Best wishes, SKB --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Sunil Da, You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya-days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon)) in 3101 BCE. But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. -VJ ========================= === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. SKB --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? thank you, Regards, Hari Malla casued thereby. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > Sinil Da, > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > Thanks > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > Sunil Da, > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Sunil Da, Mr Hari Malla says : <<< " So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. " >>> One Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa occurs in one average luni-solar year. In 72 years, there will be 72 occurrences of Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa, and not 72 x 12. All 12 months are not Maagha. this is one pitiable mistake of Mr Malla. Secondly, Sun and Moon do not reside in Dhanishthaa always. Mr Malla is adamant on refuting me, by means of distorting some facts and neglecting others. Which Dharma-shaastra is he supporting by distorting facts ?? Mr Hari Malla says : <<< " I do not know why he (Vinay Jha) thinks like that. " >>> Should I reproduce my past messages to Mr Malla in which I explained in detail why I " thinks like that " ?? I wasted much of my my time in explaining to him that lunar Maagha was impossible around 1400 BCE, and he simply ignored to discuss that point. But it is unethical to deny that I explained my point to him. Mr Malla makes much hue and cry about purity of lunar months and wants to change even ayanamsha and nirayana solar year for preserving the supposed sanctity of lunar month ; now, he thinks " we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details. " What a " scientific " way to make a selective study of facts !!! Discard those facts which do not fit into your prejudices, and thus prove your prejudices to be true !! -VJ ========================= == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:40:21 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, sincerely lyours, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 <<< " we have had two nirayan uttarayan in the last 3400 years. One was sun in dhanistha for 1700years and another sun in makar sankranti for about 1700years. " >>> What a statement ! Even today uttarayana occurs when nirayana Sun enters Makara, when saayana Sun enters Dhanishthaa due to 23 degree ayanamsha. There cannot be two different uttarayanas. What is the rationale of this 1700 year period " discovered " by Mr Malla ?? -VJ ========================== === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Saturday, July 4, 2009 2:04:49 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, We should agree, we have had two nirayan uttarayan in the last 3400 years.One was sun in dhnistha for 1700years and another sun in makar sankranti for about 1700years. It is now time we searched for another sun positon as the new solar uttarayan.Right? Please give your opinion as to the new limit of ayanamsa as 15 degrees instead of the 27 degrees as mentioned in Surya sidhnanta to continue our solilunar system as it is.Thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > sincerely lyours, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ <harimalla@> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ <harimalla@> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Sunil Da, You are right is saying that I sent detailed computational proofs to Mr Hari Malla, but you do not know that I sent both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshiya computations. There is some difference in both systems but both rule out lunar Maagha month in entire Kaliyuga according to conditions described in Vedanga Jyotisha. according to modern physical astronomy, one extra lunar month occurs in 30 centuries, while according to Suryasiddhanta it occurs in 25 centuries. Nearly two months occur in 5100 years of Kaliyuga. whether you choose Saura or Drik pakshas, there is no chance of Maagha around 1000-2000 BCE when Sun entered Dhanishthaa. You say : <<< " from the Saurapaksha calculations Vinay finds it to be impossible. " >>> Please read the above para : I took both Saura and Drik pakshas into account before sending detailed computations to Mr Malla which he ignores. -VJ ===================== ===== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Saturday, July 4, 2009 5:58:00 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, Again you are diverting the topic. The point Vinay made was quite different. First please read his last mail and then you can say if you have anything to contribute on that . Your other ideas can be in a different thread. It appears that he gave you some mathematical calculations also but you have not studied that. According to the Vedanga Jyotisha the 5-year Yuga period starts with the bright fortnight of Soli-Lunar Magha (and ends in the dark fortnight of Pausha). At the time of composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha when the Yuga started there was Uttarayana in Dahnistha and the seasonal month Obviously) was Tapa. I was telling Vinay that this is quite possible. But it seems that from the Saurapaksha calculations Vinay finds it to be impossible. I am not familiar with the Saurapaksha calculations. So you also better wait to hear from Vinay rather than diverting the topic. As you have time then please reply to my earlier mail with the 7 points. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/4/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 4, 2009, 1:10 AM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, sincerely lyours, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Mr Hari Malla should not make wrong statements in the name of ancient texts, as he says : <<< " There are two types of nirayan uttarayan, the solar and the lunar uttarayans.During the vedanga jyotish, the solar uttarayan was sun in dhanistha and the lunar uttaryan was maagha sukla pratipada. " >>> Vedanga Jyotisha or any text of past or present never mentioned anything like " lunar " uttarayana. In Vedanga Jyotisha, uttarayana coincided with lunar Magha Shukla Pratipada, but it does not mean uttarayana was defined as Magha Shukla Pratipad. Uttarayana is defined as Sun's northward motion, which is meaning of uttara + ayana 9ayana means motion). Uttarayana is not defined on the basis of Moon. There is nothing like lunar uttarayana. Second error he sticks to is his socalled siddhanta jyotisha period. this is a western propaganda. According to ancient texts, including Puranas, there were 18 original siddhantas, and all of them were given by either deities like Brhamaa Ji, Suryadeva and Chandradeva, or rishis. Among these 18, only Suryasiddhanta has survived, which Varaha Mihira called Saavitr siddhanta , which means he believed it to be given by the Vedic Sun-God Savitaa. It is wrong to equate this archaic siddhanta with man-made karana or tantra texts like Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shiromani which are later texts. mr Malla has not studied these texts and is talking of a hypothetical siddhanta-period, mixing archaic pre-Kaliyuga siddhantas with non-siddhantic texts of later period which are not siddhanta texts according to the very definition of siddhanta. Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shiromani or Panch-siddhantika are confused as siddhantas, which they are not, because are based on computations from yugaadi and from Kalpaadi which is the first requirement of a siddhanta. Mr Malla has not studied these texts, yet is passing comments like an expert. He regards observation by physical senses as the " Vedic method " . It is a lie. All Vedic and related texts are revelations made by God to Rishis, according to all ancient texts. Even ancient astrological texts like Suryasiddhanta and BPHS are revelations by deities. Sage Parashara or Maya did not carry out observation but performed tapasyaa. To say that they made observations but falsely declared otherwise is to say that that were cheats and this entire nation was full of fools to have believed in them. Mr Malla's following statement reveals his true thinking : <<< " I only want the correct dates accepted by the majority of the scholars " >>> He rejects the indegenous sholarship based on actual texts as not genuine, and Colebrooke and his disciples are " majority " of scholars !!! Mr Malla ignores mathematical proofs, avoids textual references, and relies on VOTES by a majority decision, and in this process regards only those persons as " scholars " who fit his personal standards, the rest have no votes at all. -VJ ============================== === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Saturday, July 4, 2009 8:20:23 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Thank you for expressing your frank opinion.This way we will surely clarify all our misunderstandings. Mostly I have found, modern reformers have not come to understnd our vedic system inspite of the fact that they think they know aboutit.the discussions were started in the nineteenth century,with the discussion between the sayan vadis and the nirayan vadis. They have been in two different camps because they did not properly understand our own sytem.This is the reason our calendar reform has dragged for nearly one and half century without result. Let me now explain what is nirayan uttarayan and what is sayan uttarayan.There are two types of nirayan uttarayan, the solar and the lunar uttarayans.During the vedanga jyotish, the solar uttarayan was sun in dhanistha and the lunar uttaryan was maagha sukla pratipada.During the sidhanta jyotish time they were shifted as follows.The solar uttarayan was shifted to sun in makar sankranti and the lunar uttarayan was shifted to Poush purnima.These dates we are still following although their effectivness has already expired. Now I will tell you about the sayan uttarayan.The tropical uttarayan , which is the only uttarayan you know may be called as the sayan uttarayan.We are not allowed to celebrate teh uttrayan festival by this date, although it is the actual uttrayan as observed by our physical senses.This is the vedic method which can be verified by practiced festivals.Please check. About the antiquity, I only want the correct dates accepted by the majority of the scholars, but we seem to try to stretch them finding all excuses to do so.Only this is my objection, not the correct dates. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > You make me laugh. What is Nirayana Uttarayana? Uttarayana occurs every year since the solar system came to be. It occurred at different nakshaytras at different times. Nakshatrasare Nirayana and if you do not know this simple fundamental thing then please do not waste time. > > Secondly you said: > > Quote > > Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional. > > Unquote > > Avtar krishen Kaul abuses Varahamihira and calls him Charlatan and accuses him that he had stolen astrology from the Greeks. All this is because Avtar Kaul does not know the true date of Varahamihira or pretends not to know that. So the Antiquity is the most most most important thing. I have told him that Varahamihira' s date is 427 of Sakendra kala as given by Varahamihira himself and Sakendra kala is different from the Shalivahana saka. But he is bent upon repeating the same record everytime. Next time please do not say that antiquity is not important. > > SKB > > > -- On Sat, 7/4/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Saturday, July 4, 2009, 1:34 AM > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > We should agree, we have had two nirayan uttarayan in the last 3400 years.One was sun in dhnistha for 1700years and another sun in makar sankranti for about 1700years. It is now time we searched for another sun positon as the new solar uttarayan.Right? > Please give your opinion as to the new limit of ayanamsa as 15 degrees instead of the 27 degrees as mentioned in Surya sidhnanta to continue our solilunar system as it is.Thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > > sincerely lyours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ <harimalla@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ <harimalla@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > tithi > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > 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.