Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Sunil da, I did not expect such a light minded reply from you. I have given enough evidence of impossibility of lunar month of Maagha during Kali or Dvapar ages. You should refute my statement on the basis of computation, I will welcome that. -VJ ======================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, July 6, 2009 7:44:47 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Vinay, To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 7:26 AM 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Rohini and Vinay, I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention. The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 11:46 PM Rohini Da, Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > May be 1400 BCE then. > > SKB Hey Dada-bhai, Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-) Love your sense of humour ;-) Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Vinay' Though my reply was in a light hearted way there was the message that the occurrence of the events mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha were indeed possible around 1800 BCE. Please consider the case that the Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha Nakshatra around 1800 BCE and it was the month of Magha at that time. Tapa coincided with Magha when the Tapa started with the bright fortnight. Hope now you will agree that it was possible that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha and the months of Magaha and Tapa as well as the Shuklapaksha occurred at that time. You have to consider the Purnimata Lunar month only. Best wishes, 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, 10:46 AM Sunil da, I did not expect such a light minded reply from you. I have given enough evidence of impossibility of lunar month of Maagha during Kali or Dvapar ages. You should refute my statement on the basis of computation, I will welcome that. -VJ ============ ========= === == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 6, 2009 7:44:47 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Sunil da, The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon .. But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. -VJ ========================= ==== ________________________________ " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 7:26 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Rohini Da, Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra. -VJ ==================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > May be 1400 BCE then. > > SKB Hey Dada-bhai, Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-) Love your sense of humour ;-) Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Malla Ji, 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa), and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical opinions, because you are incapable of devoting somne time on actual computations. Computing lunar month for 5000 years is a great task which needs the knowledge of panchanga making as well as computer programming, because manually one cannot do this job even if one knows the method. Colebrooke did not possess a computer and therefore erred. But had he possessed a computer, he would have computed lunar month before arriving at any decision. A computer is basically made for computing, but you are using it for spreading anti-computational purposes, for spreading wrong ideas against mathematical proofs. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Eithe show your computations proving the possibility of Magha Shukla Pratipada when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa during uttarayana around 1400 BCE, or stop your wrong messages without backing your statements with computational evidence. -VJ ====================== = ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:37:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, Namaskar! Sorry,I admit it was my mistake to think of maagha sukla pratipada occurring 864 times in 72 years,but then since you agree that it occurs 72 times, and thus sun and moon together residing in dhanistha during that period is 72 times.Then why do you think it is not possible for the event to occur even once? Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Sunil Da, Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today to Mr Hari Malla : <<< " 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa), and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical opinions, because you are incapable of devoting somne time on actual computations. Computing lunar month for 5000 years is a great task which needs the knowledge of panchanga making as well as computer programming, because manually one cannot do this job even if one knows the method. Colebrooke did not possess a computer and therefore erred. But had he possessed a computer, he would have computed lunar month before arriving at any decision. A computer is basically made for computing, but you are using it for spreading anti-computational purposes, for spreading wrong ideas against mathematical proofs. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Eithe show your computations proving the possibility of Magha Shukla Pratipada when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa during uttarayana around 1400 BCE, or stop your wrong messages without backing your statements with computational evidence. " >>> The average duration of a lunar month is 29.5305878066 days in Drikpaksha and 29.530587946071 days in Saurapaksha. The difference is negligible. Hence I am sending the Saurapakshiya computation below : 235 lunar months = 235 X 29.5305879460717 = 6939.68816732685378 days 19 Saurapakshiya years = 6939.9163731481481481481 days 235 lunar months are approximately equal to 19 solar years. No other number of solar years is equal to a better number of lunar months approxiching integral value. But even this value has a shortfall of 0.22820582129436533 days, which accumulates to one extra lunar month during 29.530587946071 / 0.22820582129436533 = 129.4033069734 cycles of 19 years each, or 2458.6628 years (actually 2458.6615 years when we make proper computation from the beginning of Creation according to siddhantic method). Therefore, match between lunar months and solar year breaks down after 2459 years, after which one month of shift takes place. During 5100 years since the onset of Kaliyuga, nearly two months of shift have occurred. that is why Mesha Samkraanti occurred on Magha Shukla Pratipada in 3101 BCE ( Note that Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneousl entry into Ashvini and not into dhanishthaa as required in Vedanga Jyotisha). but now Mesha Samkraanti occurrs around Chaitra Shukla Pratipada on an average (I have computed average of 114 years, 1900 - 2014 AD). Now-a-days, Sun enters Ashvini around Chaitra Shukla, and enters Dhanishthaa (293 degrees) nearly two months (67 degrees) earlier around Maagha. 2459 years ago, Sun entered Ashvini around Phalguna Shukla Pratipada on the average, which means around 450 BCE Sun entered Dhanishthaa 67 degrees earlier around Agrahaayana Krishna Ashtami to Pousha Shukla Pratipada, and as we go into earlier periods we get Sun in Dhanishthaa during lunar months before even Agrahaayana. no chance of Naagha at all, either in 2400 or 1800 or 1400 BCE. But it is easy to ignore lunar computations or put forth false ideas. Lunar Magha was impossible around 1800 BCE, as I have shown above. Either the length of solar year or of lunar year must be tampered with to make integral number of lunar months during some integral number of solar years for assuming lunar Maagha always in Dhanishthaa's Sun as some novices posing as experts do. You are citing wrong persons. In mathematics, citations carry no value. Refute my computations woth youtr computations, not citations of opinions. If you refute my computations in this regard, I will follow all your ideas in every field blindly. Please show computations, not opinions of those who hate mathematics. I have tested Drikpakshiya computations, which shows over 1.7 months' shift during 5100 years, which can be rounded to two, and thus tallies with Saurapakshiya computations shown above. -VJ ===================== == ________________________________ " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:39:08 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay' Though my reply was in a light hearted way there was the message that the occurrence of the events mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha were indeed possible around 1800 BCE. Please consider the case that the Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha Nakshatra around 1800 BCE and it was the month of Magha at that time. Tapa coincided with Magha when the Tapa started with the bright fortnight. Hope now you will agree that it was possible that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha and the months of Magaha and Tapa as well as the Shuklapaksha occurred at that time. You have to consider the Purnimata Lunar month only. Best wishes, 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, 10:46 AM Sunil da, I did not expect such a light minded reply from you. I have given enough evidence of impossibility of lunar month of Maagha during Kali or Dvapar ages. You should refute my statement on the basis of computation, I will welcome that. -VJ ============ ========= === == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Monday, July 6, 2009 7:44:47 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Vinay, Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE Best wishes, 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, 11:07 PM Sunil da, The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon .. But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. -VJ ============ ========= ==== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjya @ " <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 7:26 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Vinay, Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to the Shukla paksha. Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM Sunil Da, Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today to Mr Hari Malla : <<< " 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Rohini and Vinay, I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention. The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Date: Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM Rohini Da,Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.-VJ============ ======== ==____________ _________ _________ __Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras--- In , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> May be 1400 BCE then.> > SKBHey Dada-bhai,Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-)Love your sense of humour ;-)Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Pranamas,See the following alternative names:Sani : Mandhan Guru : IraNiyamRegards/Dhananjayan--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Cc: , vedic astrology , vedic_research_institute , WAVES-Vedic , indiaarchaeology Date: Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 5:00 PM Dear Rohini and Vinay, I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention. The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatrasMonday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM Rohini Da,Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.-VJ============ ======== ==____________ _________ _________ __Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras--- In , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> May be 1400 BCE then.> > SKBHey Dada-bhai,Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-)Love your sense of humour ;-)Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Sunil Da, You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. -VJ ===================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE Best wishes, 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, 11:07 PM Sunil da, The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon .. But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. -VJ ============ ========= ==== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 7:26 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Vinay, I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : Quote Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. Unquote How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM Sunil Da, You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE Best wishes, 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, 11:07 PM Sunil da, The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon .. But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. -VJ ============ ========= ==== ==== ____________ _________ _________ __ " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 7:26 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Harimallaji, No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. However the VJ says as follows: << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. Sincerely SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM Dear Bhattachajyaji, I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > 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, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- 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, 7:26 AM > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Harimallaji, You have not given any given any definition. Everybody here knows what are Purnimanta and Amanta. What you write does not make any sense. What do you mean by saying that " since many of the festivals belong to the Vedanga Jyotish days " . Can you give any reference to substantiate that the Vedanga Jyotisha endorses the start of the month in Shukla-pratipada? Purnimanta month has been followed since the Vedic times. I asked Vinay also if he has any reference in favour of the Amanta Magha in VJ. Can you also show how the Amanta Magha can fit in the 5th verse of the Rig Vedanga Jyotisha? Vinay says that it could have occurred only a million years ago. Sincerely, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:35 PM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, But it is interesting to note that many people like Jhaaji think that now adays the system is basically Amanta but they do not know that, it is actully purnimanta by the definition I have given. At present uttarayan is taken at poush purnima, thus the present system is Purnimanta.This is proven by the fact that maagh snan is done at poush purnima, as per the dharma shastras. Since many of the festivals belong to the vedanga jyotish days,the Amanta system is also prevalent as an alternative. Thus at present, both the system are running parallely.At present we may say,poush purnima is the purnimanta uttarayan and maagh sukla pratipada is the amanta uttarayan, continured from thevedanga jyotish days. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > 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, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- 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, 7:26 AM > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sunil Da, I fail to understand why you insist on Vedic and post Vedic lunar months ! I have already told you that for mathematical computations lunar months are computed from New Moon and for all religiousand social purposes lunar months begin and end with Full Moon. Both methods are Vedic and are still in vogue. You insist on the Poornimaanta month because it is popular, and the Amaanta month is used only in siddhanta. Creation began with sun, Moon and all other planets at the beginning of Mesha, according to all Indian siddhantas. Hence, it was New Moon at the beginning of Creation. Therefore, counting of synodical month must start from the start of Shukla Pratipadaa, ie from New Moon. But the first month of Creation was only a half month, because lunar month ends with Full Month. there is no difference in both systems. Lunar months are counted by New Moons, but recognized and named with reference to Full Moons. There is no contradition and no disagreement. All panchanga makers accept this system. Why you are inventing a disagreement surprising. You are raising a wrong point by putting Vedanga Jyotisha within Vedic literature and Siddhanta Jyotisha outside it. As I already showed with reference to Divya Varsha, Suryasiddhanta is 100% in conformity with the Puranic tradition, and everyone knows that Puranic tradition is based on Vedic. There is no need of creating a Vedic and non-Vedic division in the fielf of siddhanta of Jyotisha on flimsy grounds, which was a clever ploy of Westerners in order to prove a foreign origin of Siddhanta Jyotisha, as AKK also wants to prove. Jyotisha cannot exist without Siddhanta, and Siddhanta is Vedanga because Jyotisha is Vedanga. There were 18 apaurusheya siddhantas, of which only Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other socalled siddhantas are not siddhantas on two counts : they are tantra and karana texts and do not fulfill the basic criterion of a siddhanta text that siddhanta must show computations from the beginning of Creation, whereas texts like Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shoromani compjute from some nearby era ; and they are man-made unlike original siddhantas which have vanished excepting Suryasiddhanta. Any opposition to Suryasiddhanta is opposition to Vedic-Puranic tradition of Jyotisha, which is shown in all ancient texts. -VJ ====================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to the Shukla paksha. Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM Sunil Da, Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today to Mr Hari Malla : <<< " 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sunil da, I must add that bhagadatta was " Pragjyotishaadhipah " , " Mlechchhaanaam-adhipo " and " Yananaih-sahito " according to verse-12 in 47th chapter of Sabha-parva of internet edition of MBh. The previous verse I sent you mentions him as Lord of the West. In verse-49 of chapter-28 (ch-31 in internet edition of Maharshi Institute) of Sabha-parva says : " Antaakhim chaiva Romaan cha Yavanaanaam-puram " . Gitapress edition says " Aatavi, cha purim ramyaam Yavanaanaam-puram tathaa " . The internet edition is clearly spurious. Many chapters are missing, and spelling mistakes are intolerable. Rome was founded much after MBh.In Gitapress edition, this verse clearly shows Yavanpuri was some yavana colony, a precursor of Arikamedu or Arikamedu itself, in south India because this Yavanapuri was among the kingdoms won by Sahadeva in his conquest of the far south. Hence, it seems Bhagadatta was king of Pragjyotisha in Assam but due to some strange reason Yavanas of the West accepted his suzerainty, as he is called lord of Yavanas and Lord of the West. Maybe some of the residents of Assam were predecessors of yavanas who went to west later. I have no time to scan the whole of MBh for the occurrences of " yavana " . Moreover, the edition which allows search function is unreliable. Can Gitapress give us the comper copy of its edition for easy searching ? _VJ ====================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to the Shukla paksha. Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM Sunil Da, Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today to Mr Hari Malla : <<< " 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sunil da, Why you ignore the computational proofs which show that Maagha, Shukla or Krishna, Amaanta or Poornimaanta, was impossible during entire Kaliyuga under the conditions described in VJ ? Such a condition is being met now-a-days, but there was an error of one month per 2459 years as we go into past, error of two months if we go 4917 years into past, and so on. Rudra becoming Shiva is a modern myth created by mlechchhas posing as Vedic experts. Rudra means one who causes to weep (Rud), while Shiva is auspicious. Yajnavalkya says in Brihat-aranyaka-upanishada that 11 indriyas are 11 rudras because they run after external things and foster desires, leading to sorrow. when all 11 indriyas are restrained them Mind, the ultimate Rudra, becomes Shiva by sublating all indriyas, ie it merges into Shiva. Maitrayani Samhita (ie, Yajurveda) has detailed mantras for Shiva, Gauri, Ganesh, Kartikeya, etc , yet mlechchhas say Shiva is a post-Vedic deity ! Sunil da, i already sent you report of thorogh scan of Adi and Sabha parvas of MBh about " yavana " . Now, I have finished checking Vanaparva, here is the report : Verse- in ch-48 of maharishi edition includes yavanas among the western nations " paschimmani cha raajyaani.... " . Verse-30 of ch-86 includes yavanas among ethically nefarious peoples ruling the world in Kaliyuga. No eastern tribe or nation is listed, only western and southern peoples are listed with yavanas. Sabhaparva has only two occurrences of " yavana " . ------- Viraata-parva does not mention the word " yavana " even once. ------- Udyog-parva has two references : Verse-21 in ch- 19 lists yavanas among western tribes (Kaamboja, Yavana, Shaka). Verse-7 in ch-196 again includes yavanas among " Shakas, Kiraatas, Yavanas, Shibis, Vasaatis " . even once. ------- Bhishma-parva : Verse-64 in ch-10 includes yavanas with Kambojas among mlechchhas. Kambojas lived in west of India. -VJ ========================= == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Cc: ; vedic astrology ; vedic_research_institute ; WAVES-Vedic ; indiaarchaeology Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:00:26 PM [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini and Vinay, I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention. The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 11:46 PM Rohini Da, Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > May be 1400 BCE then. > > SKB Hey Dada-bhai, Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-) Love your sense of humour ;-) Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Hari Mallaji, You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi " (ie.the start of the 5-year yuga) --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > However the VJ says as follows: > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > Sincerely > > SKB > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > Quote > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > Best wishes, > > > > 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, 11:07 PM > > > > Sunil da, > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- 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, 7:26 AM > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Hari Mallaji, Sorry my mail got garbled. I am resending it. You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the Krishna pratipada ie. on the day after Pausha Purnima and after that when the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month Tapa started. Uttarayana in Dhanistha Nakshatra occurred within the same month of Magha, within which the Yuga and Tapa had already started from the Shukla pratipada.. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ was meaning " yugadi " (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga) Thus Shuklapaksha, yuga, Tapa and Uttarayana in Dhanistha all occurred within the month of Magha. By considering an Amanta Magha how can you show that Magha, Tapa, Yuga, Shuklapaksha and Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha during 1400 to 2400 BCE.. Vinay is that way very sensible and he says that with an Amanta Magha the date of these events of Vedanga Jyotisha cannot cannot occur in 1400 to 2400 BCE as his knows the Mathematics well. You appear to be in an illusion and that is what I meant when I said that you want to eat the cake and eat it too. Sunil K. Bhattacharjya . --- On Wed, 7/8/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 2:20 AM Hari Mallaji, You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi " (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga) --- On Tue, 7/7/09, 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 Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > However the VJ says as follows: > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > Sincerely > > SKB > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > Quote > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > Best wishes, > > > > 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, 11:07 PM > > > > Sunil da, > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- 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, 7:26 AM > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > 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@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Vinay, Can you please quote the relevant verse fron the Suryasiddhanta, which says that the month was Amanta? Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:28 PM Sunil Da, I fail to understand why you insist on Vedic and post Vedic lunar months ! I have already told you that for mathematical computations lunar months are computed from New Moon and for all religiousand social purposes lunar months begin and end with Full Moon. Both methods are Vedic and are still in vogue. You insist on the Poornimaanta month because it is popular, and the Amaanta month is used only in siddhanta. Creation began with sun, Moon and all other planets at the beginning of Mesha, according to all Indian siddhantas. Hence, it was New Moon at the beginning of Creation. Therefore, counting of synodical month must start from the start of Shukla Pratipadaa, ie from New Moon. But the first month of Creation was only a half month, because lunar month ends with Full Month. there is no difference in both systems. Lunar months are counted by New Moons, but recognized and named with reference to Full Moons. There is no contradition and no disagreement. All panchanga makers accept this system. Why you are inventing a disagreement surprising. You are raising a wrong point by putting Vedanga Jyotisha within Vedic literature and Siddhanta Jyotisha outside it. As I already showed with reference to Divya Varsha, Suryasiddhanta is 100% in conformity with the Puranic tradition, and everyone knows that Puranic tradition is based on Vedic. There is no need of creating a Vedic and non-Vedic division in the fielf of siddhanta of Jyotisha on flimsy grounds, which was a clever ploy of Westerners in order to prove a foreign origin of Siddhanta Jyotisha, as AKK also wants to prove. Jyotisha cannot exist without Siddhanta, and Siddhanta is Vedanga because Jyotisha is Vedanga. There were 18 apaurusheya siddhantas, of which only Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other socalled siddhantas are not siddhantas on two counts : they are tantra and karana texts and do not fulfill the basic criterion of a siddhanta text that siddhanta must show computations from the beginning of Creation, whereas texts like Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shoromani compjute from some nearby era ; and they are man-made unlike original siddhantas which have vanished excepting Suryasiddhanta. Any opposition to Suryasiddhanta is opposition to Vedic-Puranic tradition of Jyotisha, which is shown in all ancient texts. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to the Shukla paksha. Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM Sunil Da, Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today to Mr Hari Malla : <<< " 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Vinay, As regards the Divya Varsha you are yet to read the Chapter 57 of the Vayu purana. SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:28 PM Sunil Da, I fail to understand why you insist on Vedic and post Vedic lunar months ! I have already told you that for mathematical computations lunar months are computed from New Moon and for all religiousand social purposes lunar months begin and end with Full Moon. Both methods are Vedic and are still in vogue. You insist on the Poornimaanta month because it is popular, and the Amaanta month is used only in siddhanta. Creation began with sun, Moon and all other planets at the beginning of Mesha, according to all Indian siddhantas. Hence, it was New Moon at the beginning of Creation. Therefore, counting of synodical month must start from the start of Shukla Pratipadaa, ie from New Moon. But the first month of Creation was only a half month, because lunar month ends with Full Month. there is no difference in both systems. Lunar months are counted by New Moons, but recognized and named with reference to Full Moons. There is no contradition and no disagreement. All panchanga makers accept this system. Why you are inventing a disagreement surprising. You are raising a wrong point by putting Vedanga Jyotisha within Vedic literature and Siddhanta Jyotisha outside it. As I already showed with reference to Divya Varsha, Suryasiddhanta is 100% in conformity with the Puranic tradition, and everyone knows that Puranic tradition is based on Vedic. There is no need of creating a Vedic and non-Vedic division in the fielf of siddhanta of Jyotisha on flimsy grounds, which was a clever ploy of Westerners in order to prove a foreign origin of Siddhanta Jyotisha, as AKK also wants to prove. Jyotisha cannot exist without Siddhanta, and Siddhanta is Vedanga because Jyotisha is Vedanga. There were 18 apaurusheya siddhantas, of which only Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other socalled siddhantas are not siddhantas on two counts : they are tantra and karana texts and do not fulfill the basic criterion of a siddhanta text that siddhanta must show computations from the beginning of Creation, whereas texts like Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shoromani compjute from some nearby era ; and they are man-made unlike original siddhantas which have vanished excepting Suryasiddhanta. Any opposition to Suryasiddhanta is opposition to Vedic-Puranic tradition of Jyotisha, which is shown in all ancient texts. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to the Shukla paksha. Best wishes, SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM Sunil Da, Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today to Mr Hari Malla : <<< " 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sunil da, Why you ignore the computational proofs which show that Maagha, Shukla or Krishna, Amaanta or Poornimaanta, was impossible during entire Kaliyuga under the conditions described in VJ ? Such a condition is being met now-a-days, but there was an error of one month per 2459 years as we go into past, error of two months if we go 4917 years into past, and so on. Rudra becoming Shiva is a modern myth created by mlechchhas posing as Vedic experts. Rudra means one who causes to weep (Rud), while Shiva is auspicious. Yajnavalkya says in Brihat-aranyaka-upanishada that 11 indriyas are 11 rudras because they run after external things and foster desires, leading to sorrow. when all 11 indriyas are restrained them Mind, the ultimate Rudra, becomes Shiva by sublating all indriyas, ie it merges into Shiva. Maitrayani Samhita (ie, Yajurveda) has detailed mantras for Shiva, Gauri, Ganesh, Kartikeya, etc , yet mlechchhas say Shiva is a post-Vedic deity ! Sunil da, i already sent you report of thorogh scan of Adi and Sabha parvas of MBh about " yavana " . Now, I have finished checking Vanaparva, here is the report : Verse- in ch-48 of maharishi edition includes yavanas among the western nations " paschimmani cha raajyaani.... " . Verse-30 of ch-86 includes yavanas among ethically nefarious peoples ruling the world in Kaliyuga. No eastern tribe or nation is listed, only western and southern peoples are listed with yavanas. Sabhaparva has only two occurrences of " yavana " . ------- Viraata-parva does not mention the word " yavana " even once. ------- Udyog-parva has two references : Verse-21 in ch- 19 lists yavanas among western tribes (Kaamboja, Yavana, Shaka). Verse-7 in ch-196 again includes yavanas among " Shakas, Kiraatas, Yavanas, Shibis, Vasaatis " . even once. ------- Bhishma-parva : Verse-64 in ch-10 includes yavanas with Kambojas among mlechchhas. Kambojas lived in west of India. -VJ ========================= == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Cc: ; vedic astrology ; vedic_research_institute ; WAVES-Vedic ; indiaarchaeology Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:00:26 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Rohini and Vinay, I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention. The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani. Best wishes, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- 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, 11:46 PM Rohini Da, Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > May be 1400 BCE then. > > SKB Hey Dada-bhai, Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-) Love your sense of humour ;-) Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 The converse is also true : invisible dark matter is 9 times more weigthy than normal matter, and black holes can contain more than we can give into them. -VJ ========================== == ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:06:27 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunil da, Even the densest of atoms has more space than substance. The Universe is full of holes! RR 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.