Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 To All, Mr Hari Malla is deliberately distorting things. He says : <<< " When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. " >>> It is a lie he is spreading. Vedanga Jyotish says Sun and Moon simultaneously enter into Dhanishthaa at the time of uttarayana on Maagha Shukla Pratipada. Mr Malla and all his predecessors beginning from Colebrooke delibearately neglect to mention Maagha Shukla Pratipada and check only the position of Sun. Such a selective use of facts is intellectual dishonesty. In my view, Colebrooke was not dishonest, he overlooked the need to check whether Maagha Shukla Pratipada was possible then or not. But Mr Malla is certainly not sincere when he refuses to check the full statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and insists on checking only the position of Sun and not of tithi, just because checking tithi 3400 years ago is a time consuming task which those cannot undertake who poke fun at " over zealous fans of mathematics " . Mathematical problems cannot be solved by rhetoric, which Mr Malla is trying to do. If we overlook the fact that Vedanga Jyotisha talked of Maagha Shukla Pratipada at the onset of uttarayana when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa, why Mr Malla refuses to accept this statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and quotes it selectively merely to misinform members here ? I do not feel any need to show further proofs to Mr Malla because he has started quoting Vedanga Jyotisha selectively, deliberately omptting the mention of tithi. But those who may be misinformed by his neglect of tithi computation needed to understand the conditions in Vedanga Jyotisha are requested to read my previous mail in which I gave the details. If tithi as mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha is neglected, then Mr Hari Malla is correct. But why tithi should be neglected ? Around 1400 BCE, Maagha Shukla Pratipada was impossible (error of 21 tithis) at the conditions mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha. By burying mathematics, Mr Malla is not harming me but himself. -VJ ============================= === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Tuesday, July 7, 2009 7:30:26 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, Sorry I cannot say, Lahiri's calculations are more authentic than the version of vedanga jyotish who are talking with first hand knowledge, about their own epoch.Please forgive me. When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. From the beginning of dhanistha to the beginning of makar rashi, it is seven padas.If uttarayan occurred at the beginning of makar rashi, in 285 AD, simple calculation says sun in dhanistha was seven ninth of 2150 years or 1672 YEARS BEFORE 285 AD, which is 1387 BC or approximately 1400 BC. Only simple people can get such simple answer, but the answer for exta-ordinary persons seems also to be extra ordinary.I actually don't know what that is and I am not interested to learn any extraordinary mathematics by going to extra ordinary schools? Sorry to disappoint you. But I do not mind if you have some educative comments for this simple calculation I have presented above.If you can show where I have erred in the above calculation, please do not hesitate to teach me, but please without bringing new factors into your calculations out of your own fancies.Then after settling the above calcualtions, perhaps we can talk further about tithi fluctuations etc.First thing first please. Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Sunil Da, All three recensions of Vedanga Jyotisha say that the 5-samvatsara yuga begins with Maagha Shukla Pratipada, which starts just after New Moon. I have already stated this in many messages. But Vedanga Jyotisha does not say that lunar month began with New Moon. Hence, lunar month began and ended with what is the literal and Vedic meaning of the term " Poorna-maasi " . It was New Moon at the beginning of creation according to all siddhantas. -VJ =========================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:27:50 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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 It is deplorable that Mr Hari Malla has stooped to the level of making false statements in my name. He says : <<< " 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. " >>> I do not know what what definition Mr Malla gives. I had said in many of my previous messages that Poorna-maasi means completion of lunar month and therefore it means Poornimaanta system, and I also said that it is referred to in first chapter of yajurveda, hence Poornimaanta system is Vedic and has been in contant practice in all ages. To All, But I also said that creation began on New Moon according to all Indian siddhantas and even Vedanga Jyotisha says that its 5-samvatsara yuga begins with New Moon, ie with Maagha Shukla Pratipada. Even todat, mathematical computations are made on Amaanta system and in all traditional panshangas Poornimaas have tithi number 15 while Amaavasa has tithi number 30. Hence, counting of months is Amaanta, although for all religious and social purposes poornimaanta system is in use. Both methods are in use in their respective fields since time immemorial till today. Mr Hari Malla is deliberately distoring my views and is stealing my statement about nboth systems being used simultaneously. Should I show my past messages ?? But he does not know that both systems were in use since Vedic times, which is proven by the term Darsha-poornamaasi in first chapter of Yajurveda. He knows that many Sanskrit and general universities accept me as an authority in these matters, and he has no credential at all in support of his bizarre ideas. -VJ ======================= === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:05:04 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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, Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. -VJ ========================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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@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, 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 <<<it could have occurred only a million years ago.>>> I never said so. I said it could have NOT occurred within a million years before now. It means " more than one million years " . I have scanned one million years by means of specially designed softwares. Manually it is impossible. -VJ ================= == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:21:27 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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@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, 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 Mr Hari Malla has made innumerable false statements which I have refuted with cogent proofs, but he is retaliating with false statements about me without even caring to cite where he feels me to be in the wrong ; he says : " How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. " He is lying. And he is not even supplying the context !! -VJ ====================== === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:26:25 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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 Mr Malla is correctly getting the meaning of Amanta and Poornimaanta. But by poking fun at computations as being " funny " means this person regards mathematics as funny. Why he fails to show how Maagha Shukla Pratipada was possible in the period ~1400 BCE for start of VJ 5-samvatsara cycle of uttarayana ??? Poking fun at someone does not disprove that person. On the contrary, if one answers mathematics with baseless gossips, who is funny in deed ?? -VJ ======================= == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:36:24 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, The very fact that the month starts from Maagha sukla pratipada means it is amanta maagha, since it starts then and ends at amavsya. If the month started 15 days before on the krishna pratipada then it would end on the maagha purnima.This is purnimanta maagha.There is no doubt in this. But to say some person has discovered that the verdict of vedanga jyotish is wrong, that uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, and that event was millions of years ago is funny indeed. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > 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 VJ clearly says Pratipadaa in verse-8. ________________________________ " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 2:50:17 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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 Sunil Da, You have misunderstood me completely, and are citing me wrongly. I never said 1400 or 2400 or 1800 BCE are impossible on the basis of Amaanta or poornimaanta Maagha, I said was Maagha Shukla ratipada occurred on Mesha Samkraanti in 3101 BCE according to all ancient and modern panchanga makers and siddhanta experts of India. It is not my personal view. Mathematically, one month shift occurs in 2459 years. Hence, now Mesha Samkraanti occurs two monyhs after Maagha Shukla ratipada, and now Maagha Shukla Pratipada roughly falls around the start of Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. What is now prevailing around 2000 AD is what Vedanga Jyotisha tells. But VJ cannot be a work of 2000 AD. 2459 years before now, Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place one month BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and 4917 years before now Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place two months BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and 7376 years before now Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place threemonths BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and so on. I am talking of Maagha Shukla Pratipada, which will always remain Maagha Shukla Pratipada whether you count with Amaanta or with Poornimaanta method. If you think Amaanta system means lunar month ends there and new lunar month begins, then you are mistaken. Lunar month always ends and begins with a Poornimaa, since the Vedic times. Amaanta system is never used for naming months. It is used for computing the number of lunations in mathematics and is not used by laymen or even by non-astro pandits at all. It is surprosing that you are burying my computations under fictious argument of my computations being based on Amaant system. Perhaps you think that Maagha Shukla Pratipada of amaanta system become Maagha Krishna Pratipada or something else in Poornimaanta system !! There is no such thing as Maagha Shukla Pratipada of amaanta system. Amaanta system is not used for making lunar months. It is used for computing lunation numbers, because Creation, Mahayuga and 5-year VJ yuga began with New Moon. -VJ ======================= === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:59:39 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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@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 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 Sunil Da, Earlier, you said other Puranas are inferior to Bhagavata Purana. Now, after I showed that Bhagavata Purana also supports what all other Puranas and siddhantas say, it seems Vayu Purana has become more important than Bhagavata Purana, esp after you learnt that I do not possess Vayu Purana (I have ordered it alrewady, not beacuse I believe you will accept its verdict, but because I need all Puranas). -VJ ========================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:48:51 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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, Verse57 & 58 in chapter-1 of SS says that all mean planets were at " Meshaadau " (start of Mesha) at the end of current Kritayuga. Hence, Sun and moon were at same point, which means a mean New Moon. Now, you can compute backwards or forwards, with the formula given in SS : 53433336 lunar synodical months per mahayuga of 4320000 years (verse-35). Computing backwards, you will find New moon at the start of Creation. It is very easy. Current kritayuga ended 1953720000 years after Creation started. In so many years, there will be 452.25 mahayugas. Each mahayuga has an integral number of lunar months. Hence, only the fractional part needs to be checked : there will be 53433336 * 0.25 lunar months in the fractional part 0.25 mahayugas, which is again an integer. Hence, Current mahayuga began 24165226206 lunar months after Creation. 24165226206 is an integer. Hence, if current kritayuga ended with a NM, Creation also began with a mean NM. Dvapar and Kaliyuga add up to 2160000 years, which again has integral number of lunations. Hence, current kaliyuga also began with a mean NM. But these are computational things. Amaanta system should never be used for naming months. First month of Creation was Agrahaayana Shuklapaksha, which lasted till poornimaa, ie the first month of creation was a half mongth only. So are first months of current Kalioyuga, current Tretaa, etc. -VJ ================= == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:44:44 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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_bhattacharjy a @> 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, The Nakshatras do not move. In 1800 BCE the Uttarayana was occurring in the Dhanistha Nakshatra in the Makar Rashi and the fullmoon occurring at that time in the Magha Nakshatra is the Purnimanta Magha month. Secondly please do not forget the episode where Mother Parvati asks Lord Shiva as to how a great devotee of His can be defeated. Then Lord Shiva said that Ravana ignored the 11th part of His, ie the 11th Rudra abd that 11th part was born as Hanuman who was helping Rama to defeat Ravana. That is why one must read the Purana before reading the Veda. Hope you have read by now the 57th chapter of the Vayu Purana, where the Divya Varsha is defined. Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras vedic astrology Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:03 AM 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: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ . com; 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 Sunil Da, I am amazed at the audacity and self-righteousness with which Mr Hari Malla is making wrong atatements in the name of Vedanga Jyotisha, and declares like an expert : " Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. " . Look at his errors which shows his pitiable knowledge of mathematics and pitiable respect for ancient texts. Firstly, VJ never says months should be named from New Moon. Amaanta system is merely for computations, not for naming of months. VJ is related to Vedas, hence we must conclude that the Vedic system of Poornamaasi (ch-1, YV) as Poorna of a Maasa was used in VJ. But Mr Malla makes confusing and wrong statements, showing both Amaanta and poornimaanta systems used for NAMING of months, which is not mentioned in VJ. No coherent system can have two different systems for naming months used simultaneously. Secondly, VH does not give adhimaasa in the manner Mr Malla is giving. Mr Malla saw some 5-year period for adhimaasas, and imagined that same order will be followed for all times, not knowing that adhimaasa cycle cannot be reduced to 5-year cycle. It is because he does not know the DEFINITION of Adhimaasa. Adhimaasa is the extra number of lunar months with respect to solar months. In one mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 51840000 Sauramaasas and 53433336 Chaandramaasas, therefore there are 1593336 adhimaasas in 4320000 years. There is one adhimaasa after each 2.711292533 years. In 5-year VJ yuga, there will be 1.844138888..... adhimaasas, which is roughly equal to 2 in a short period but in one thousand such 5-year yugas there will be only 1844 adhimaasas instead of 2000 adhimaasas as suggested by Mr Malla's ludicrous description. Due to this irrational number (2.711292533 years per adhimaasa), the month which will see adhimaasa will also keep changing. Mr Malla wrongly imagines all 5-year yugas to have only Poosha and Ashadha adhimaasas. He implies that adhimaasas are impossible in other months !!! Internet has no restriction for such false ideas. No degree or credential is needed for putting forth such computation, in tha language of an expert !! And such an " expert " wants to reform our calendar !! -VJ ============================ == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:37:40 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and punimanta months are also known as krishnadi. There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after the purnimanta month. Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima. The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada. Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. Regards, Hari Malla , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > 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 To All : Mr Hari Malla wants to impose his calendar reform on the basis of his wrong computations. In previous mail, he said only Pousha and Ashadha aere adhimaasas, which proves he does not know that adhimaasas occur in many other months too. He also believes that Pousha to Pousha perfect cycle of two adhimaasas fit in 5-year cycle, which means one adimaasa per 2.5 years. God knows wherefrom he got this wrong figure. there are over 2.7 adhimaasas in 5 years, and therefore the month in which adhimaasa occurs keeps on changing, unlike his belief. Now, he says lunar month and tithi should not be computed at all because Moon moves nearly 12 times faster than the Sun !! He does this trick in the case of Vedanga Jyotisha, which is very scrupulous in naming the tithi and paksha on each year of the samvatsara yugas. According to the debatable verse of Vedanga Jyotisha on whose basis its date is being fixed by Colebrooke & c, we must reckon following things : (1) Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa , (2) Moon's simultaneous entry into Dhanishthaa, 93) Uttarayayana, and (4) Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Since Vedanga jyotisha mentions four conditions, it is utter dishonesty to neglect any one of these conditions for proving one's false prejudices. mr Malla falsely says " I have found Jhaaji equating solar and lunar entries as equal. " it is not me but both the ancient recensions of Vedanga Jyotisha which regard all four conditions of equal inportance. he does not know that the very term Panchaanga is derived from five attributes of Moon, which means lunar motions are most important. What he calls hair-splitting by me shows that he is erring by nearly 45 days in the case of determination of tithi, if Vedanga Jyotisha is put around 1400 BCE approximately, as he wants to. 45 days of error is not a mean error. He pokes fun at correct mathematics as 'mathematical fantasies " . He fails to compute the lunar month and tithi for ~1400 BCE, while I have shown him the easy method of computing it, which is not hair-splitting. Hair-splitting is arguing over seconds and minutes, but errors of 45 tithis in determination of tithi is not " ptractical " method, as he says. such " practical " persons do not even consult panchangas which they want to reform, otherwise he would not have said that only two monyhs have adhimaasas !!! if he does not want to understand the mathematics of panchanga, why he is determined to pose as an expert in this field and reform our panchangas merely to destroy it, by deforming ayanamsha & c ?? -VJ ============================= == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:53:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear all, I have found Jhaaji equating solar and lunar entries as equal.He should understand that the sun is a fixed body and it is ideal to consider it in conncetion with precession. One months shift in 2150 years is a long long time to move over a short distance.Only the fixed sun is ideal to keep this tract of this motion. The moon is a very mobile thing it goes round the earth every month.It also fluctuates in course of two and half to three years over corresponding solar dates 15 days before and after.If we mix the two motions, it is like mixing the hour and the second hands in a clock.Before we say how many seconds, we say what the hour is. At 12 o clock the hour and the second hands may coincide.The second hand being at 12 is not as important as the hour hand being at 12.The 12 o' clock time is indicated by the hour hand, the second hand also being at 12 or even 5 seconds plus and minus is insignificant. The indicator of time is first the hour hand.In this same way we should consider the precession with respect to the sun position only.The moon repeats the one month change of position in less than three years where as precession changes over that same one month position in 2150 years.Thus when the moon moves more than eight to nine hundred times back and forth over 30 degrees, precession moves that same distantce only once.So why he likes to give the same importance to the two events of moon moving every three or less years and precession moving in 2150 years.. Thus it is prefectly OK to consider only the sun positon at dhanistha, the moon position being comparatively insignificant. Also,I have given the example of how uttrayan takes 72 years to move only half degree before and after dhanistha, where as the moon would have gone back and forth on both sides of that point of dhanistha, at least 28 times (taking 2.5 years' adhimas cycle).To think that in that period, the moon would not been at that point (alighned to dhanistha) is too much of hair splitting, which I am sure the vedanga jyotish people would never want to do. When they say it occurred like that(the moon also came across dhanistha) who are we to say it did not occur then. Let us not go to fictitius figures, because we like to show we are extra-ordinary people.Let us live in the practical world and not in our mathematical fantasies.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > To All, > > Mr Hari Malla is deliberately distorting things. He says : > > <<< " When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. " >>> > > It is a lie he is spreading. Vedanga Jyotish says Sun and Moon simultaneously enter into Dhanishthaa at the time of uttarayana on Maagha Shukla Pratipada. Mr Malla and all his predecessors beginning from Colebrooke delibearately neglect to mention Maagha Shukla Pratipada and check only the position of Sun. Such a selective use of facts is intellectual dishonesty. In my view, Colebrooke was not dishonest, he overlooked the need to check whether Maagha Shukla Pratipada was possible then or not. But Mr Malla is certainly not sincere when he refuses to check the full statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and insists on checking only the position of Sun and not of tithi, just because checking tithi 3400 years ago is a time consuming task which those cannot undertake who poke fun at " over zealous fans of mathematics " . Mathematical problems cannot be solved by rhetoric, which Mr Malla is trying to do. If we overlook the fact that Vedanga Jyotisha talked of Maagha > Shukla Pratipada at the onset of uttarayana when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa, why Mr Malla refuses to accept this statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and quotes it selectively merely to misinform members here ? > > I do not feel any need to show further proofs to Mr Malla because he has started quoting Vedanga Jyotisha selectively, deliberately omptting the mention of tithi. But those who may be misinformed by his neglect of tithi computation needed to understand the conditions in Vedanga Jyotisha are requested to read my previous mail in which I gave the details. > > If tithi as mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha is neglected, then Mr Hari Malla is correct. But why tithi should be neglected ? Around 1400 BCE, Maagha Shukla Pratipada was impossible (error of 21 tithis) at the conditions mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha. By burying mathematics, Mr Malla is not harming me but himself. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ======== === > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 7:30:26 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji, > Sorry I cannot say, Lahiri's calculations are more authentic than the version of vedanga jyotish who are talking with first hand knowledge, about their own epoch.Please forgive me. > When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. > From the beginning of dhanistha to the beginning of makar rashi, it is seven padas.If uttarayan occurred at the beginning of makar rashi, in 285 AD, simple calculation says sun in dhanistha was seven ninth of 2150 years or 1672 YEARS BEFORE 285 AD, which is 1387 BC or approximately 1400 BC. Only simple people can get such simple answer, but the answer for exta-ordinary persons seems also to be extra ordinary.I actually don't know what that is and I am not interested to learn any extraordinary mathematics by going to extra ordinary schools? Sorry to disappoint you. > But I do not mind if you have some educative comments for this simple calculation I have presented above.If you can show where I have erred in the above calculation, please do not hesitate to teach me, but please without bringing new factors into your calculations out of your own fancies.Then after settling the above calcualtions, perhaps we can talk further about tithi fluctuations etc.First thing first please. Thank you. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 To All : Mr Hari Malla wants to impose his calendar reform on the basis of his wrong computations. In previous mails, he said only Pousha and Ashadha aere adhimaasas, which proves he does not know that adhimaasas occur in many other months too. He also believes that Pousha to Pousha perfect cycle of two adhimaasas fit in 5-year cycle, which means one adimaasa per 2.5 years. God knows wherefrom he got this wrong figure. there are over 2.7 adhimaasas in 5 years, and therefore the month in which adhimaasa occurs keeps on changing, unlike his belief. Now, he says lunar month and tithi should not be computed at all because Moon moves nearly 12 times faster than the Sun !! He does this trick in the case of Vedanga Jyotisha, which is very scrupulous in naming the tithi and paksha on each year of the samvatsara yugas. According to the debatable verse of Vedanga Jyotisha on whose basis its date is being fixed by Colebrooke & c, we must reckon following things : (1) Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa , (2) Moon's simultaneous entry into Dhanishthaa, (3) Uttarayayana, and (4) Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Since Vedanga jyotisha mentions four conditions, it is utter dishonesty to neglect any one of these conditions for proving one's false prejudices. He does not know that the very term Panchaanga is derived from five attributes of Moon, which means lunar motions are most important. What he calls hair-splitting by me shows that he is erring by nearly 45 days in the case of determination of tithi, if Vedanga Jyotisha is put around 1400 BCE approximately, as he wants to. 45 days of error is not a mean error. He pokes fun at correct mathematics as 'mathematical fantasies " . He fails to compute the lunar month and tithi for ~1400 BCE, while I have shown him the easy method of computing it, which is not hair-splitting. Hair-splitting is arguing over seconds and minutes, but errors of 45 tithis in determination of tithi is not " ptractical " method, as he says. such " practical " persons do not even consult panchangas which they want to reform, otherwise he would not have said that only two monyhs have adhimaasas !!! if he does not want to understand the mathematics of panchanga, why he is determined to pose as an expert in this field and reform our panchangas merely to destroy it, by deforming ayanamsha & c ?? -VJ ============================= == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 10:38:01 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, which indicates around 3,400 years from now,(along with the moon, whose position is comparatively insignificant due to its great frequency or many many fluctuations both sides of that same point), how can you say,it cannot occur in a million years.Have you not defied vedanga jyotish and its statement that the sun was in dhanistha? Sorry Jhaaji,I never intend to hurt.Perhaps you are trying to lift vedanga jyotish over the sky,but I feel you are fond of adding many zeros to real figures to make facts sound like fiction.Perhaps this is like the puranic style. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Mr Hari Malla has made innumerable false statements which I have refuted with cogent proofs, but he is retaliating with false statements about me without even caring to cite where he feels me to be in the wrong ; he says : > > " How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. " > > He is lying. And he is not even supplying the context !! > > > -VJ > ============ ========= = === > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " harimalla@. .. " <harimalla@. ..> > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:26:25 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > 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 To All, Mr Hari Malla is out to destroy Vedic jyotisha by his ludicrous ayanamsha and indian panchangas by his ignorant statements. His newest mistake is his show of ignorance about the tithi on the start of Kaliyuga which he sarcastically suggests is my invention. He does not read either books or panchangas. The tithi (Maagha Shukla pratipada) on the start of Kaliyuga is not my idea but is found in a lot of astrological texts written over centuries which he does not read, and is still published by almost all traditional panchangas, because Yugaadi Tithi is religiously held to be important and it is duty of panchanga makers to publish tithis of onsets of Sata, Treta, Dvaapar and Kali yugas. Mr Malla has no knowledge of panchangas and imagines Kaliyugaadi is my invention, or I borrowed it from some " strange " source. He asks " Has any body ever heard that maagha sukla pratipada occurred in mesh sankranti? " I fear Mr Malla will never consult texts like Muhurta Chintaamani which have explicitly stated that Kaliyuga (ie Mesha Samkraanti) began with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa), because he has no faith in such texts which he wants to destroy with his strange new Dharma. Whatever be the source of Maagha Shukla pratipada being the first tithi of Kaliyuga, I found it to be true. Mr Hari Malla pokes fun at my computations, without feeling the need to refute my computations or supply counter evidences. He is just making charges, without forwarding prrofs. I made softwares on the basis of ancient siddhantas, with updated beeja-samskaaras, which was accepted by many universities, Govt sanskrit academies, Shankaracharya and many other institutions after they found it to be correct. Mr Malla has nothing to support his rhetoric, neither any computational evidence against me, nor any institution to back him. either he has a failing memory or he is insincerely making false statements : " I asked Jhaaji to check the truth by his own panchanga.He said it has not occurred in the last 2000 years or so, but it will occur when the time comes. " I never said so. I said again and again that the conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha are being fulfilled now-a-days, on an average, but he quotes me falsely as saying " it will occur when the time comes " . The time has come, but he fails to see that the conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha are being fulfilled now-a-days, on an average. It proves he is not really interested in checking these conditions, amd is merelt satisfied with colonial propaganda of Colebrooke about Vedanga Jyotisha His statements against mathematics are deplorable : " Perhaps when one gets too fond of mathematics, he gives up the truth so he can prove his mathematics to be correct, by making irrelevant assumtions and consider their calculations to be truer than reality. They should know that our ancient rishis were clever enough not to make such mistakes,by giving the same names of fullmoon and the nakshaytras. The rishis knew well how to escape the trap that some mathematicians fall into. " rishis never abused mathematics. Instead of abusing mathematics or me, why he consistently refuses to back his ludicrous statements with computations ? Why he refuses to accept that durations of year and month are mathematical quantities and determination of month in any remote year needs mathematics and not philosophy ??? He has stepped into the field of mathematics, but refuses to abide by the laws of mathematics whicg are not framed by me but are universal. Mr Malla knows that most of the members here are not interested in these themes, but he does not know that each and every false statement is stored in archives which anyone will use against him in future. Therefore, he must post carefully computed results about mathematical topics and not try to solve mathematical problems by means of political rhetorics. -VJ ======================= == ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 8, 2009 11:14:49 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Statements like this is defying the coordinated nirayn system of the sun and the moon. <I said was Maagha Shukla pratipada occurred on Mesha Samkraanti in 3101 BCE > How he gets these strange ideas, is really worthy of research.I asked Jhaaji to check the truth by his own panchanga.He said it has not occurred in the last 2000 years or so, but it will occur when the time comes.I wonder if such a time will ever come? Has any body ever heard that maagha sukla pratipada occurred in mesh sankranti? I have only heard that Chaitra sukla pratipada or Chaitra purnima or even Vaisakh sukla pratipada occurs on mesh sankranti. Perhaps when one gets too fond of mathematics, he gives up the truth so he can prove his mathematics to be correct, by making irrelevant assumtions and consider their calculations to be truer than reality. They should know that our ancient rishis were clever enough not to make such mistakes,by giving the same names of fullmoon and the nakshaytras. The rishis knew well how to escape the trap that some mathematicians fall into.Thus they were wiser.I hope you agree with me. Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Da, > > You have misunderstood me completely, and are citing me wrongly. I never said 1400 or 2400 or 1800 BCE are impossible on the basis of Amaanta or poornimaanta Maagha, I said was Maagha Shukla ratipada occurred on Mesha Samkraanti in 3101 BCE according to all ancient and modern panchanga makers and siddhanta experts of India. It is not my personal view. Mathematically, one month shift occurs in 2459 years. Hence, now Mesha Samkraanti occurs two monyhs after Maagha Shukla ratipada, and now Maagha Shukla Pratipada roughly falls around the start of Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. > > What is now prevailing around 2000 AD is what Vedanga Jyotisha tells. But VJ cannot be a work of 2000 AD. 2459 years before now, Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place one month BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and 4917 years before now Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place two months BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and 7376 years before now Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place threemonths BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and so on. I am talking of Maagha Shukla Pratipada, which will always remain Maagha Shukla Pratipada whether you count with Amaanta or with Poornimaanta method. > > If you think Amaanta system means lunar month ends there and new lunar month begins, then you are mistaken. Lunar month always ends and begins with a Poornimaa, since the Vedic times. Amaanta system is never used for naming months. It is used for computing the number of lunations in mathematics and is not used by laymen or even by non-astro pandits at all. > > It is surprosing that you are burying my computations under fictious argument of my computations being based on Amaant system. Perhaps you think that Maagha Shukla Pratipada of amaanta system become Maagha Krishna Pratipada or something else in Poornimaanta system !! There is no such thing as Maagha Shukla Pratipada of amaanta system. Amaanta system is not used for making lunar months. It is used for computing lunation numbers, because Creation, Mahayuga and 5-year VJ yuga began with New Moon. > > > -VJ > ============ ========= == === > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:59:39 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > 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@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 > > 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 If you know everything then why are you wasting your time here. Go ahead and prepare your calendar and write your books. Open your own Calendar group as Kaul and Darshaney also do not agree with your ideas. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 6:07 AM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and punimanta months are also known as krishnadi. There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after the purnimanta month. Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima. The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada. Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. Regards, Hari Malla , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Dear Vinay, In Vedanga Jyotisha days the summer solstice occurred in Aslesha and that tells you the part of Dhanistha where the Uttarayana occurred and then go ahead with finding the pada of Magha Nakshatra in which the Punimanta Magha occurred. Then everything will fall in line. But I know you will not try as you think that it to be impossible. So let us end the discussions on this topic here. Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:02 AM 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: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ . com; 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Sunil Da, Suryasiddhanta (ch-12, verse-89) says Nakshatra-kakshaa has an orbit exactly 60 times of solar orbit. in other words, Nakshatra-kakshaa has a period of 60 years. In comparison, Saturn has a period of 29.47 years and Uranus of 84 years. Therefore, all bodoes including Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which were farther than 60 year orbit were regarded as non-planets and astrologically ineffective. A planet was defined on this basis, and not on the basis of its orbiting Sun which is a modern definition applicable not to astrology but to physical astronomy. Due to Nakshatra-kakshaa being of 60-years, Sun takes 60 years to move to same point in sky during a period in which the Nakshatra-kskshaa makes one revolution round Meru. Hence, Sun needs one more year to reach to same point on the Nakshatra-kakshaa. Since astrological results are reckoned with reswpect to Nakshatra-kakshaa, we get a 61-year weather cycle which was empirically attested in my paper. Jovian year is not composed of 50% erratic and 50% predictable halves. All traditional astrologers believe that Jovian cycle is 100% accurate. but this 61-year cycle is half erratic and half predictable, because it gives only the correspondence of Sun with Nakshatra-kakshaa and of planets like Mercury and Venus which do not move much farther from the Sun in a horoscope, but other planets like Saturn, Jupiter and Mars do not show any conformity with this 61 year cycle due to their different periodicities. That is why only half of this 61-year cycle gives predictable waveform correspondence. I did not express this explanation in my paper because an astrological explanation could not be written in a scientific paper. You say my paper was unscientific, but scientists of IISc thought otherwise : this 61 year cycle is a fact which they recognized and that is why they accepted my paper, otherwise a person not ever serving in any institution and having no degree in weather science would not have been invited there to present his paper. Hence, there are two proofs of Nakshatra-kakshaas not being fixed ; ancient siddhanta, whose saying about Nakshatra-kakshaa being of 60 years was never refuted by any expert, and empirical evidence deduced from rainfall analysis. Nakshatra-kakshaa revolves round Meru once per 60 years with respect to Fixed Sky, which is not the physical space-time continuum of Einstein, the latter is intrinsically related to matter and cannot exist without matter. The Akasha of SS and of all Vedic philosophies is God, Who is Absolute, Fixed and Constant. But astrologically speaking, we may assume Nakshatra-kakshaa to be fixed, because all astrological computations and predictions are made with respect to Nakshatra-kakshaa. Since Nakshatra-kakshaa is the frame of reference in astrology, Nakshatras may be assumed to be fixed. Moreover, mortals cannot see it moving with respect to the Fixed Absoulute Akasha-Brahma. You may not digest these " anachronistic " ideas. But cannot say these are my personal opinions. These ideas are original siddhantic and Vedic-Puranic ideas, which some zealous reformers are tryinmg to modify for making Hinduism more " scientific " . i have no interest in such reforms, because these reformers are neither astrologers nor scientists. Scientists should keep away from a pseudo-science like astrolgy, and astrologers should first try to understand siddhantas before trying to reform it with their half baked knowledge of Siddhanta Jyotisha. -VJ ===================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya vedic astrology Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:09:23 AM Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, The Nakshatras do not move. In 1800 BCE the Uttarayana was occurring in the Dhanistha Nakshatra in the Makar Rashi and the fullmoon occurring at that time in the Magha Nakshatra is the Purnimanta Magha month. Secondly please do not forget the episode where Mother Parvati asks Lord Shiva as to how a great devotee of His can be defeated. Then Lord Shiva said that Ravana ignored the 11th part of His, ie the 11th Rudra abd that 11th part was born as Hanuman who was helping Rama to defeat Ravana. That is why one must read the Purana before reading the Veda. Hope you have read by now the 57th chapter of the Vayu Purana, where the Divya Varsha is defined. Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras vedic astrology Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:03 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ . com; 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Dear Vinay, You are right. Would you not think that 7 adhimaasas in 19 years is a better figure? Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 10:54 AM Sunil Da, I am amazed at the audacity and self-righteousness with which Mr Hari Malla is making wrong atatements in the name of Vedanga Jyotisha, and declares like an expert : " Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. " . Look at his errors which shows his pitiable knowledge of mathematics and pitiable respect for ancient texts. Firstly, VJ never says months should be named from New Moon. Amaanta system is merely for computations, not for naming of months. VJ is related to Vedas, hence we must conclude that the Vedic system of Poornamaasi (ch-1, YV) as Poorna of a Maasa was used in VJ. But Mr Malla makes confusing and wrong statements, showing both Amaanta and poornimaanta systems used for NAMING of months, which is not mentioned in VJ. No coherent system can have two different systems for naming months used simultaneously. Secondly, VH does not give adhimaasa in the manner Mr Malla is giving. Mr Malla saw some 5-year period for adhimaasas, and imagined that same order will be followed for all times, not knowing that adhimaasa cycle cannot be reduced to 5-year cycle. It is because he does not know the DEFINITION of Adhimaasa. Adhimaasa is the extra number of lunar months with respect to solar months. In one mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 51840000 Sauramaasas and 53433336 Chaandramaasas, therefore there are 1593336 adhimaasas in 4320000 years. There is one adhimaasa after each 2.711292533 years. In 5-year VJ yuga, there will be 1.844138888. .... adhimaasas, which is roughly equal to 2 in a short period but in one thousand such 5-year yugas there will be only 1844 adhimaasas instead of 2000 adhimaasas as suggested by Mr Malla's ludicrous description. Due to this irrational number (2.711292533 years per adhimaasa), the month which will see adhimaasa will also keep changing. Mr Malla wrongly imagines all 5-year yugas to have only Poosha and Ashadha adhimaasas. He implies that adhimaasas are impossible in other months !!! Internet has no restriction for such false ideas. No degree or credential is needed for putting forth such computation, in tha language of an expert !! And such an " expert " wants to reform our calendar !! -VJ ============ ========= ======= == ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:37:40 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and punimanta months are also known as krishnadi. There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after the purnimanta month. Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima. The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada. Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. Regards, Hari Malla , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 DearRohini and Vinay, Are you both not referring to the two sides of the same coin? The atoms have (atomic)space between the orbiting electrons and the nucleus. In the black hole such atomic space does not exist and there is only dense mass. Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:05 AM 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@ hotmail.com> 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...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Dear Vinay, As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha. The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada. You know this . Why then is the confusion? Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15 days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month was Magha. I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400 BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or not. Besyt wishes, SKB. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM Sunil Da, Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. -VJ ============ ========= ===== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 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@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 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 RR Ji, Jyotisha has survived on account of efforts by humans. Scriptures say that even gods get strengthened by yajnas & c, which means divine graces and attributes in humans gets strengthened. If we abandon the ways of gods, gods do not get weak , it is us and our culture which gets weak. Even monks like Shankaracharya had to campaign for saving our values. We cannot shirk our duty by saying that Vedas and Vedangas are too strong to need our efforts. I know Mr Hari Malla will not get a single convert to his novel theory of ayanamsha & c, but there are already some confused persons who may become more confused with his additional confusions. I tried my best to abstain from making any harsh remarks, but he has started abusing mathematics which is the only pure science and does not need voting or quotations. -VJ ========================= === ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Thursday, July 9, 2009 4:06:46 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Come on Vinay ji! Surely Vedic Jyotish is not that fragile to crumble that easily, by a wrong ayanamsha or so on. It has its own Angel inside that has preserved it for so many hundreds of years. Please give it more credit. Jyotish is Mother, and not some infant that is so vulnerable.. .! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > To All, > > Mr Hari Malla is out to destroy Vedic jyotisha by his ludicrous ayanamsha and indian panchangas by his ignorant statements.. . <rest snipped since irrelevant for this posting...> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Dear Vinay, Thank you for explaining the 61-year cycle. What about the astrological prediction of annual rainfall in a state or a country using the values of the latitude and longitude of the central point of that state or country? Can the rainfall be predicted this way also year by year, ie. as part of the Varshaphal? Will this be a part of the Medini Jyotish? Just a thought. Where you presented your paper does not matter to me as all types of papers are presented in all conferences. Some of them are of the highest quality and some are of the poorest quality. So the fact that the organisers allowed one to present one's paper does not mean much. What the paper contains is only important. You have discussed a concept from Jyotish shastra and people wanted to hear about it. I appreciate your explanations of the 61-year cycle. You did not mention that your paper was an invited paper ? Did you present any paper on that subject anywhere earlier ? Why not publish a paper on the topic, with particular emphasis on the utility of the concept, in a reputed journal ? You may even ask your friends in the Sanskrit Universities to undertale some research in this area. If the results (ie. rainfall predictions) appear reliable over a priod of time people may accept the idea, at least empirically, to begin with. You may find it difficult to convince people about the Nakshatra Kakshaa straightway. Best wishes, SKB. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras vedic astrology Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 11:32 PM Sunil Da, Suryasiddhanta (ch-12, verse-89) says Nakshatra-kakshaa has an orbit exactly 60 times of solar orbit. in other words, Nakshatra-kakshaa has a period of 60 years. In comparison, Saturn has a period of 29.47 years and Uranus of 84 years. Therefore, all bodoes including Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which were farther than 60 year orbit were regarded as non-planets and astrologically ineffective. A planet was defined on this basis, and not on the basis of its orbiting Sun which is a modern definition applicable not to astrology but to physical astronomy. Due to Nakshatra-kakshaa being of 60-years, Sun takes 60 years to move to same point in sky during a period in which the Nakshatra-kskshaa makes one revolution round Meru. Hence, Sun needs one more year to reach to same point on the Nakshatra-kakshaa. Since astrological results are reckoned with reswpect to Nakshatra-kakshaa, we get a 61-year weather cycle which was empirically attested in my paper. Jovian year is not composed of 50% erratic and 50% predictable halves. All traditional astrologers believe that Jovian cycle is 100% accurate. but this 61-year cycle is half erratic and half predictable, because it gives only the correspondence of Sun with Nakshatra-kakshaa and of planets like Mercury and Venus which do not move much farther from the Sun in a horoscope, but other planets like Saturn, Jupiter and Mars do not show any conformity with this 61 year cycle due to their different periodicities. That is why only half of this 61-year cycle gives predictable waveform correspondence. I did not express this explanation in my paper because an astrological explanation could not be written in a scientific paper. You say my paper was unscientific, but scientists of IISc thought otherwise : this 61 year cycle is a fact which they recognized and that is why they accepted my paper, otherwise a person not ever serving in any institution and having no degree in weather science would not have been invited there to present his paper. Hence, there are two proofs of Nakshatra-kakshaas not being fixed ; ancient siddhanta, whose saying about Nakshatra-kakshaa being of 60 years was never refuted by any expert, and empirical evidence deduced from rainfall analysis. Nakshatra-kakshaa revolves round Meru once per 60 years with respect to Fixed Sky, which is not the physical space-time continuum of Einstein, the latter is intrinsically related to matter and cannot exist without matter. The Akasha of SS and of all Vedic philosophies is God, Who is Absolute, Fixed and Constant. But astrologically speaking, we may assume Nakshatra-kakshaa to be fixed, because all astrological computations and predictions are made with respect to Nakshatra-kakshaa. Since Nakshatra-kakshaa is the frame of reference in astrology, Nakshatras may be assumed to be fixed. Moreover, mortals cannot see it moving with respect to the Fixed Absoulute Akasha-Brahma. You may not digest these " anachronistic " ideas. But cannot say these are my personal opinions. These ideas are original siddhantic and Vedic-Puranic ideas, which some zealous reformers are tryinmg to modify for making Hinduism more " scientific " . i have no interest in such reforms, because these reformers are neither astrologers nor scientists. Scientists should keep away from a pseudo-science like astrolgy, and astrologers should first try to understand siddhantas before trying to reform it with their half baked knowledge of Siddhanta Jyotisha. -VJ ============ ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> vedic astrology Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:09:23 AM Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, The Nakshatras do not move. In 1800 BCE the Uttarayana was occurring in the Dhanistha Nakshatra in the Makar Rashi and the fullmoon occurring at that time in the Magha Nakshatra is the Purnimanta Magha month. Secondly please do not forget the episode where Mother Parvati asks Lord Shiva as to how a great devotee of His can be defeated. Then Lord Shiva said that Ravana ignored the 11th part of His, ie the 11th Rudra abd that 11th part was born as Hanuman who was helping Rama to defeat Ravana. That is why one must read the Purana before reading the Veda. Hope you have read by now the 57th chapter of the Vayu Purana, where the Divya Varsha is defined. Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras vedic astrology Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:03 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ . com; 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 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Sunil da, I am surprised with your hurried comments, with additional hurry to end discussions with a wrong statement : <<< " In Vedanga Jyotisha days the summer solstice occurred in Aslesha and that tells you the part of Dhanistha where the Uttarayana occurred and then go ahead with finding the pada of Magha Nakshatra in which the Punimanta Magha occurred. Then everything will fall in line. But I know you will not try as you think that it to be impossible. So let us end the discussions on this topic here. " >>> Vedanga Yyotisha says uttaraayana occurred in the beginning of Dhanishthaa ( " shravishthaadau " which means beginning of Dhanishthaa), and in the same verse-6 it is said that dakshinaayana occured in the " middle of Ashleshaa ( " sarpaardhe " ). Middle of Ashlesha is 113.333 degrees, and just 180 degrees after is start of Dhanishthaa, ie 293.333 degrees. Thus, why you think the pada of Maghaa in which FM occurs cannot be computed is surprising. It is very simple, as you know. Instead of ending the discussion, you should compute True Sun, True Moon, elongation or Tithi, and most inportantly name of the lunar month. For determining the name of lunar month in a remote period, you need a list of adhimaasas and kshayamaasas. It is not impossible. I made a special software for computing adhimaasas for any period of entire Kalpa. The problem with you is that you do not accept the need to compute the ratio of lunar month to solar year, which suggests that one non-adhimaasa extra month is generated after each 2459 years according to SS and after 3 millenia according to physical astronomy. Therefore, two extra months occurred since the onset of Kaliyuga. That is why all panchanga makers lublish that Kaliyuga started with Maagha Shukla Pratipada on mesha Samkraanti, and now the same mesha Samkraanti occurs two months after Maagha Shukla Pratipada. It is not my personal opinion : read any reputed traditional panchanga of any state of India, the start of Kaliyuga is declared to be Maagha Shukla Pratipada and I have found it to be mathematically correct, with a slight difference : Mean Tithi was Maagha Shukla Pratipada but True tithi on Mesha Samkraanti occurred two days ago on tryodashi when Kaliyuga started. You do not feel the need to check it because of your belief in the new theory which puts entire Mahayuga within 12000 solay years. If you do not want to check by means of actual computations, then it is indeed better to end the discussion. -VJ ====================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:01:43 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, In Vedanga Jyotisha days the summer solstice occurred in Aslesha and that tells you the part of Dhanistha where the Uttarayana occurred and then go ahead with finding the pada of Magha Nakshatra in which the Punimanta Magha occurred. Then everything will fall in line. But I know you will not try as you think that it to be impossible. So let us end the discussions on this topic here. Best wishes, SKB --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:02 AM 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_bhattacharjy a @> Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ . com; 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...
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.